Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Belfast Harbour Bill, Blyth Harbour Bill, Bristol Corporation Bill, Dover Harbour Bill, Dublin Port and Docks Bill, Manchester Ship Canal Bill, Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill, Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Swansea Harbour Bill,

To be read the third time To-morrow.

Tees Conservancy Bill,

Tyne Improvement Bill,

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Private Bills (Group A),—Sir Harry Samuel reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, sit Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Milford Docks Bill,

Stocksbridge Gas Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

D. H. Evans and Company Bill [Lords], Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE HANDBOOKS.

Mr. BETTERTON: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether handbooks to the number of 160 or thereabouts have been prepared at the public expense for the use of the Foreign
Office, dealing with the commerce, industries, and economic resources of the various countries or parts of countries to which they relate; and whether, in view of the great value to British traders of the information therein contained, he will give directions for the publication of these handbooks forthwith?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Handbooks to about the number specified in the hon. Member's question have been prepared by the Historical Section of the Foreign Office for the use of the British Delegation at the Peace Conference. Much of the information contained in them is of a confidential nature, and is not confined to the commerce, industries, and economic resources of the various countries, etc., to which they relate. This fact makes it impossible to publish them without considerable revision, but the question of the best form in which the non-confidential information contained in some of them might with advantage be made public will receive consideration.

Mr. BETTERTON: In view of the fact that economic information of this character, however accurate, very soon becomes out of date, will my hon. Friend deal with the matter with the least possible delay?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I am giving the matter my immediate personal attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SURGICAL BOOTS (OFFICERS).

Major COHEN: 10.
asked the Pensions Minister whether officers whose wounds necessitate the wearing of a surgical boot are only given the first issue free, whereas in the case of non-commissioned officers and men a second boot is issued, and all subsequent repairs are undertaken by the Ministry; and, if this is the ease, what remedy he proposes?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I regret that I cannot add to the reply I gave to the question put to me on the 1st instant, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

CASE FOR INQUIRY.

Mr. A. SHORT: 12.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Mrs. Curtis, of 46, Camp Street, Wednesbury, the wife of the late Private John Curtis, No. 8619, South Staffordshire Regiment, made application for a pension for herself and children; whether the application was negatived on technical or legal grounds; and, if so, whether he will give instructions for the case to be again reviewed?

Sir L. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: There are some peculiar and exceptional aspects in this case. I will give it personal attention.

WIDOW'S SECOND MARRIAGE.

Mr. A. SHORT: 13.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Mrs. R. Cound, of 28, New Road, Great bridge, Wednesbury, has lost her husband and two sons in the War; whether she receives no pension or allowance for the loss of her sons; and, if so, whether he will institute inquiry with a view to this injustice being rectified?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Mrs. Cound is receiving pension and child's allowance in respect of her late husband, amounting with bonus to 24s. 6d. a week. Her former dependence, as a widow, on her sons is considered to have ceased on her second marriage in April, 1917, but if she can show that she is in pecuniary need and incapable of self-support by reason of infirmity she can be granted a parent's pension under Article 21 (1) (b) of the Royal Warrant.

DEMOBILISED SOLDIER'S DEATH.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Pensions Minister whether there is any fund which could be drawn on for the relief of the widow of a demobilised soldier whose death has been caused by wounds or disease contracted on active service, but where the marriage has taken place after the man's demobilisation?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the circumstances stated, the man was a civilian and disabled at the time of the marriage. The widow is, therefore, not within the Pensions Warrant.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the granting of some compensation in this case, on the ground of encouraging the marriage of these wounded men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I cannot deal with it. This case is, as I say, a civilian case, and it does not come within the Warrant. I have no power to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (VOLUNTARY WORKERS).

Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: 11.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that many voluntary workers on local war pensions committees in Scotland, though greatly inconvenienced, are remaining at their duties from patriotic motives; and whether he can make any announcement regarding the date on which their services will no longer be required?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I gratefully acknowledge the fact stated, and, as I am convinced that the success of the work of the Department largely depends upon the efforts of members of committees, earnestly hope they will continue to carry on their work.

Lieutenant-Colonel MURRAY: How long does the right hon. Gentleman intend these committees to carry on their work?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not want to prophesy; I want the committees to continue to carry on.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S LANCASHIRE CONVALESCENT HOME, BLACKPOOL.

Mr LUNN: 14.
asked the Pensions Minister if his attention has been called to the men's discontent with the general conditions prevailing at the King's Lancashire Convalescent Home, Blackpool; and, if so, what steps he intends to take to remedy the same?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am aware that discontent has been expressed by some of the men sent to this military hospital. I expect to take over the hospital shortly and meanwhile have informed the local committee concerned that they should arrange for the removal of those who are discontented and should, for the future, obtain the consent of a man whom they propose to send there.

Mr. LUNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would not be much better to improve the conditions locally than to send away the discontented men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no jurisdiction over a military hospital until I take it over, and in the meanwhile I can only do what I have said. I must not be taken to admit that the conditions there are not quite satisfactory.

Mr. LUNN: Is he not aware that it is admitted by the officer in charge that the facilities and comforts are far from being satisfactory?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I am not aware of that. On the contrary, my medical officers report that this hospital is an extremely good hospital. The difficulty has arisen owing to sending discharged men to the hospital that is under military discipline, and it is that difficulty that I am trying to remove.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVALESCENT SOLDIERS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. LUNN: 15.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that the West Riding War Pensions Committee have more than 100 men waiting for convalescent treatment and of the inability of the committee to find vacancies for these men in existing convalescent homes; and what practical suggestions have the Ministry to offer, so that these men may have an opportunity of being restored to health?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The information I have suggests that the fullest use has not yet been made of the accommodation available. The West Riding Committee have been informed that there is accommodation to be had at the Royal Northern Sea Bathing Infirmary, Scarborough, and arrangements are also being made for the reception of fifty cases at the Red Cross Hospital at Saltburn, and this additional accommodation will, I hope, be found sufficient.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTS NEWSPAPER ("IN MEMORIAM" NOTICE).

Sir H. CRAIK: 16.
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the In Memoriam notice in the Adrossan and Saltcoats "Herald" news paper of 14th March, 1919, and the Troon and Prestwick "Times" newspaper of 14th March, 1919, inserted in memory of Gunner Robert Walker by his widow, and stating that he had been sacrificed for a
callous and unjust country, and calling upon Heaven to avenge his children; is he aware that this In Memoriam notice has been reproduced in the "Forward" newspaper, of Glasgow, in a manner calculated to stir up indignation against the Army and pensions administration; and whether he has inquired into the facts of this case?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My attention has been called to this matter. I regret that the newspapers accepted these advertisements, and that the "Forward" should have given them further publicity for propaganda purposes. I have personally investigated the case, and I have satisfied myself that the State could not possibly accept liability for the death of Mrs. Walker's husband. Gunner Walker joined for service on the 7th March, 1917, and after six days' service was removed to hospital, where, four days later, he died. The cause of his death was delirium tremens, resulting' from alcoholism. I regret that it should be necessary for me to publish those facts, but the scandalous attempt to make mischief owing to the refusal of pension leaves me with no alternative.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEES (APPOINTMENTS).

Captain LOSEBY: 17.
asked the Pensions Minister if his attention has been called to the action of the Peterborough War Pensions Committee, who recently appointed an ex-political agent to the post of assistant secretary at £250 a year, an assistant lady clerk at £120 a year, and finally advertised for a junior shorthand clerk and typist, preferably a discharged soldier, at 25s. a week; if he is aware that in many instances well-remunerated posts under war pensions committees have been given to male civilians whose war service gave them no special claim to consideration; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that the more highly remunerative posts under war pensions committees shall, where possible, be reserved for ex-soldiers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: All new appointments of principal officers are now subject to my approval, as provided by the Regulations issued under the Act of 1918, but the post of assistant secretary to the Peterborough committee was filled before the Act was passed, and cannot therefore be brought within the Regulations. With regard to the other appoint-
ments mentioned, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the control which I exercise over the selection of local staff must of necessity be confined to the appointment of principal officers. It would be impracticable to regulate minor appointments from headquarters, and I must rely upon the committees themselves to be guided by the same principles of selection as are observed by the Ministry in the approval of the appointments submitted under the Regulations.

Captain LOSEBY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of definitely limiting these appointments within a reasonable period of time to ex-soldiers?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Throughout, in the appointment of all principal officers, that is done. In regard to minor officers, it is quite impossible for headquarters to attempt to dictate to some 2,000 local committees and sub-committees throughout the country. I must rely on the local committees themselves to observe the quite proper rule that ex-Service officers and men ought to have priority, and I believe I can rely on the local committees in general to carry out that rule.

Captain LOSEBY: Would it not be possible to issue a Regulation operative after a certain date?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So long as I have to rely, and I do have to rely, upon the voluntary work of local committees the degree of interference by headquarters must be limited.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask if any qualifying test is put to candidates for these appointments, or whether they are simply appointed without any inquiry as to their fitness or antecedents?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So far as local committees are concerned, they have to rely, naturally, on the work of their permanent officials, and I rely upon the local committees to choose suitable people. Their work would break down if they did not. As regards those that I approve, the principal officers, I require to be satisfied that they have qualifications which enable them to fulfil the offices to which they are appointed.

Mr. ROSE: There is no form of examination?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Not applicable to everyone, but if the local
committee say they cannot find a suitable officer, then I have already made arrangements for the training of a suitable officer, and in the course of that training he is examined before being put forward as a suitable person for appointment by the local committee.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is it a fact that they have to have five certificates before they get an appointment? I have a list of cases here.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really do not know to what my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. CAIRNS: I have a list of cases. There is one—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHELL-SHOCK TREATMENT.

Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: 18.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will have investigation made into the case of Private Joseph Burgin, No. 240271, York and Lancaster Regiment; whether this man, who is suffering from shell-shock, applied for treatment in August, 1918; whether treatment was ordered by a medical board and subsequently by a private practitioner who is a medical referee to the local war pensions committee; and whether he has asked to be sent to the Pilkington Special Hospital, St. Helens, where he was previously treated, but in spite of repeated applications during the past seven months, in addition to letters to the treatment branch of the Ministry direct, nothing so far has been done?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This case was referred to the Special Medical Board in February last, and, after investigating it, the board made an appointment for the 9th April for an examination. Private Burgin did not attend, and another appointment is being made for a day next week. In the meantime, Private Burgin is under home treatment, and is drawing full allowances.

Mr. SEXTON: What is the object in not sending him to this local hospital, if he wants to go there?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must have notice of these details.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CASEMENT BRIGADE.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the members of the Casement Brigade who resided in Dublin were furnished with money and given prominent positions at seditious gatherings by the Sinn Fein organisation; if these thirty-three men are now in Ireland, and if they now have complete liberty?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has not information with regard to the first part of the question. Six of these men are believed to have returned to their homes in various parts of Ireland. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given to his previous question, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the 15th ultimo.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the six include the Unionist soldier from Belfast, who was a member of the brigade?

Mr. SAMUELS: I have no information.

MURDER OF POLICEMEN (REMOVAL OF BOY WITNESSES).

Mr. EDWARD KELLY: 21 and 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether, in view of the allegation by the police authorities that the boy Timothy Connors was removed by the police to the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, Dublin, with a view to his personal safety, he can explain how the danger to Timothy Connors' personal safety disappeared on that day on which notice of motion for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the boy was served on the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary;(2) whether the opinion of the Law Officers was obtained before the boys, John Connors, Timothy Connors, and Matthew Hogan, were removed by the police from their homes with a view, as alleged, of securing their personal safety; under what Statute or Regulation of legal sanction does the Crown claim to remove from the custody of parents, without the consent, knowledge, or approval of the parents, children of tender years; and has the Crown previously taken such action under similar circumstances?

Mr. MacVEAGH: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his atten-
tion has been called to the circumstances of the abduction by the police of a child of eleven years, Timothy Connors, from Greenane, county Tipperary, to Dublin; whether he is aware that on notice of issue by the High Court of a writ of habeas corpus, the child was surreptitiously returned to his parents, and that an affidavit was then sworn by the assistant Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that the child was not in his custody or charge; whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice severely censured the affidavit as lacking in candour and disrespectful to the Court; whether he can say how such conduct can be reconciled with the statement that the child was arrested in the interests of justice; what action has been taken by the Government in respect of the affidavit sworn by the Assistant Inspector-General; whether the Assistant Inspector-General is still in office; and whether the costs of the legal proceedings will be defrayed by the Assistant Inspector-General or by the taxpayer?

Mr. SAMUELS: In the course of inquiry as to the brutal murder of two policemen at Tipperary in January last, the local constabulary brought the boy Timothy Connors to the police barrack for interrogation. In face of organised intimidation exercised against persons suspected of having, or giving information as to the crime, the boy was removed to Dublin by the police in his own interests, as well as in the interests of justice. The advisability of that course was made clear by the issue of posters warning policemen that they would be shot at sight and threatening civilians giving information that they would suffer a similar fate.
The boy's parents were not refused information as to his whereabouts, and he received all possible care and attention in Dublin. Apart from the issue, of the writ of habeas corpus, it had been decided to return the boy to his parents on their request, and to place full responsibility for his safety on them.
Two other boys similarly detained had already been returned on these conditions The sending back of the boy Connors took place after the issue of notice of motion for the writ, and was not done surreptitiously. The Lord Chief Justice made his order and gave costs against the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, not because of circumstances attending the taking possession of the boy, but
because His Lordship considered the action of the authorities in depriving themselves of the custody of the boy was not an answer to the application for the writ. The Assistant Inspector-General is still in office, and it is intended to retain him. He is a thoroughly efficient and trustworthy officer. There was no misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police, and it is proposed to pay the costs out of State funds. The law officers were consulted in the matter throughout. The boys were not detained under any statutory power, but in exercise of primary duty of the executive to protect them from assassination as a result of their interrogation by the police.
I would refer to the reply given to the previous question on this subject by the hon. Member for East Donegal on the 29th ultimo.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the Attorney-General tell me the date on which the children were kidnapped, and the date on which this placard was issued?

Mr. SAMUELS: The children were not kidnapped.

Mr. MacVEAGH: We call it kidnapped.

Mr. SAMUELS: The date on which the children went to Tipperary Barracks—

Mr. MacVEAGH: Went, or were brought?

Mr. SAMUELS: Or were brought, was 11th February, in the case of Timothy Connors. In the case of the other boy, it was 19th February. As to this notice, I which I will shew to my hon. Friend if he wishes, I cannot tell the exact date, but it was most extensively circulated, and I am I sure if he saw it he would thoroughly concur with our authorities in their action.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not a fact that this placard was not issued until after the children were abducted?

Mr. SAMUELS: The placard, which I have in my hand, states—

Mr. MacVEAGH: I want the date of it.

Mr. SAMUELS: It is not dated.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Was it after the abduction?

Mr. SAMUELS: I gather not, for it evidently refers to the boys—
Whereas it has come to our knowledge that some men and boys have been arrested—

Mr. MacVEAGH: That is the point.

Mr. SAMUELS: (continuing):
and whereas there are a few Irishmen who have sunk to such depths of degradation that they are prepared to give information about their neighbours and fellow-countrymen to the police.
and so on.
Any policeman found in such areas on and after—day of February, 1919, will be deemed to have forfeited his life.…Civilians who give information to the police or soldiery, especially such information as is of a serious character, if convicted will be executed, namely, shot or hanged

Mr. MacVEAGH: Does not the opening sentence prove that the children had already been arrested at the time that the placard was issued? Is it the Attorney-General's defence now that these children were taken away by the police in anticipation of a placard about which the police knew nothing? I want to ask another very important question arising out of that. Does he not know perfectly well that that placard was put up by two policemen?

Mr. SAMUELS: I resent that most strongly.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Well, it is true—an absolute concoction.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIANS (DEPORTATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department how many Russians have been deported from this country between 1st January, 1919, and 1st May, 1919; where they were landed; and how many were arrested on disembarking?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Between the dates named, five Russians were deported from this country. They were landed in Norway, and their journey to Russia through Sweden and Finland had been arranged. I have no reason to think that any were arrested.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I Were those Russians provided with safe conducts?

Mr. SHORTT: We cannot give safe conducts to Bolsheviks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will their families be permitted to rejoin them?

Mr. SHORTT: As soon as shipping allows.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will their families be sent out at the Government's expense?

Mr. SHORTT: Undoubtedly.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OFFICES.

MUSEUM AND ART GALLERIES.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 31.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what museums and galleries, or part of museums and galleries, are still occupied by the staffs of Government offices; what are the numbers of such staffs and the Department of which they

—
Department.
Staff.


National Gallery
…
…
…
…
Ministry of Munitions
…
…
…
657


National Portrait Gallery
…
…
…
War Office
…
…
…
…
377


National Gallery of British Art
…
…
Ministry of Pensions
…
…
…
824


British Museum
…
…
…
…
Registrar of Friendly Societies and War Office
292


New Science Museum (uncompleted building)
Post Office Savings Bank
…
…
1,500


Imperial Institute and Science Museum (Western Galleries)
War Office
…
…
…
…
1,410


Hertford House (Wallace Collection)
…
Ministry of Munitions
…
…
…
460


Victoria, and Albert Museum
…
…
Board of Education
…
…
…
914


Old Royal College of Science Building


London Museum
…
…
…
Supreme Economic Council
…
83


Ministry of Blockade
…
…


Ministry of shipping
…
…

The temporary retention of the staff at the London Museum will not interfere with the opening of the museum.

It is impossible for me to give any definite date of the removal of these staffs, I but steps are being taken which will assist me in this object, which, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, I very much desire.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (APPROACH).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the eastern end of Grosvenor Road, and whether he will make representations to the Borough of Westminster that the state of the paving
are members; and when it is proposed to remove them from the museums and galleries?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): As the question is long and the answer is longer, with a large number of figures, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me to circulate it in the Official Report, so as not to take up the time of the House.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to give notice that if the answer be unsatisfactory—

An HON. MEMBER: It will be!

Sir S. HOARE: I will raise the question on the Adjournment on Monday.

The following is the Answer referred to:

The following museums and galleries are wholly or partly occupied by staffs of Government offices:—

of that road renders the approach to the Palace of Westminster both arduous and dangerous?

Sir A. MOND: The Westminster City Council have for some time realised the necessity for repaving this road, but the great shortage of both labour and suitable materials have hitherto made it impossible for them to undertake the work. The council, however, have included in their first list of paving works to be done the portion of Grosvenor Road referred to, and I understand a recommendation for the acceptance of tenders for the work will be considered by the council at their meeting this afternoon.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday and today heavy conveyances have broken down in that road, owing to lack of repair, solely
due to the remissness of the Westminster City Council; is he also aware that every morning and evening I have to wheel nay bicycle over that piece of road?

Sir A. MOND: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that there is no jurisdiction.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations as to the dangers to Members of Parliament coming to Westminster?

POLISH JEWS.

Colonel THORNE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary what precisely is the nationality that should be ascribed to a Polish Jew who before was an Austrian subject; if he is aware that the National Polish Committee, which is supposed to be the voice of Poland, say that Jews are not Poles; if he is aware that the Government, by keeping those people interned and subject to police restriction, assume that they are alien enemies; if he is aware that the Austrian Government notified the Swedish Ambassador that the allowances paid to dependants of interned Galician Poles should be stopped, because Galicia is now part of Poland; if he can now say what nationality can the Home Office give to an Austrian Polish Jew; and if he will receive a deputation from the National Polish Committee about the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: I am already in communication with the Polish National Commit tee on this subject, and I have every hope that an arrangement may shortly be made by which Polish Jews who are at present technically of enemy nationality, may in proper cases be recognised as Polish citizens and rank as alien friends. At the present moment, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a deputation.

FRIENDLY ALIENS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 26.
asked the Homo Secretary the number of persons who, though nominally of German or Austrian nationality, were exempted from internment by the Home Office on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee as being friendly aliens, such as Poles and others?

Mr. SHORTT: I understand that, as stated by my predecessor on more than one occasion, the number is about 3,000.

DEATH SENTENCE.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: 27.
asked the Home Secretary how many women were sentenced to death in the United Kingdom during the year 1918; and how many of such sentences were commuted?

Mr. SHORTT: Nine women were sentenced to death in the United Kingdom during the year 1918. The sentence was commuted in each case.

Major LOWTHER: 28.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons were sentenced to death during the years 1914–18, inclusive, for treason, espionage, and similar offences against the safety of the State; how many of such persons were of enemy, neutral, and British nationality; and how many sentences were carried out?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is nineteen persons. Of these eight were of enemy nationality or origin, eight were of neutral, two of Allied, and one of British nationality. The sentence was carried out in thirteen cases. These figures do not include cases which arose in connection with the Irish Rebellion of 1916.

TRAFALGAR SQUARE (RELIGIOUS SERVICES).

Mr. REMER: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether religious services are prohibited in Trafalgar Square; and, if so, what are the reasons for this prohibition?

Mr. SHORTT: Trafalgar Square is not, generally speaking, a suitable place for religious services, but, as I said in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the North-East Division of Leeds last Tuesday, if an application is made for a combined religious service in connection with the Peace celebrations, it will be considered.

Mr. REMER: Is it a suitable place for Socialist gatherings?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes.

Mr. DEVLIN: Why should not Trafalgar Square have its religious ceremonies quite as much as the House of Commons every day?

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 30.
asked the Home Secretary the present position regarding conscientious objectors who are engaged on work of national importance;
and whether there is any prospect of these men being allowed to return to their homes and usual occupations?

Mr. SHORTT: Men formerly employed under the Home Office Committee are now, under the recent decision of the Government, allowed to reside or seek work where they please. As regards men exempted by the tribunals on condition of doing work of national importance, who do not come within the jurisdiction of the Home Office, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS BRANCH).

Colonel YATE: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state exactly what are the arrangements made by the Appointments Branch for getting employment for demobilised officers; how many officials are employed in the Appointments Branch; how many of these are demobilised officers; how many demobilised officers have been provided with employment; and who is responsible for the proper carrying out of the work?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): The arrangements made by the Appointments Branch for securing employment for demobilised officers do not admit of detailed description within the limits of an answer. I should be glad to inform the hon. and gallant Member privately of the system. However, the number of administrative officials in the Appointments Department is at present 499; they are almost all demobilised officers. The number of officials is in process of reduction, with the gradual diminution of the Department's work in relation to demobilisation as distinct from appointment and training. Employment is known to have been obtained by the Department for 4,415 officers and men of similar educational qualifications, excluding those on the staff of the Department itself. It is impossible to say how many others have neglected to notify to the Department the fact of having obtained the appointments to which they were recommended. The officer responsible to me for the work of the Department is the Controller-General of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Department is costing over £400,000 a year in salaries alone?

Sir R. HORNE: No; the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely inaccurate; as I said to the House not long ago, the cost is very much less.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (HOLWELL IRON COMPANY).

Colonel YATE: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representation from the Holwell Iron Company enclosing a list of eighty-one men enaged by them through the Labour Exchange between 21st February and 30th April of this year, and stating that only two of those men have so far reported; whether many men prefer to draw the out-of-work pay rather than accept the situations offered; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: The communication referred to has been received within the last few days, and inquiry is being made into the circumstances. It frequently happens that men find other employment before the engagement of them by the firm originally applying can be effected, and the circumstances stated do not necessarily give rise to the inference that the men preferred to draw unemployment pay to working. In any such case unemployment pay would be stopped.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake in the course of his inquiries to inquire as to the class of employment these men were offered, and whether the wages offered were those current for similar classes of work at these particular works?

Sir R. HORNE: All matters that are relevant will be inquired into.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman report the result of his inquiries by circulating it with the Official Report?

Sir R. HORNE: If a question is put down again I shall be very glad to give an answer.

FOREIGN SUBJECTS (PERMITS).

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the
number of applications for permits to admit of foreign subjects coming to this country awaiting the attention of the Committee constituted at 28, Broadway, Westminster, and the average number of cases per day taken by the Committee at its meetings, held twice a week; whether, considering the importance of more speedy action than that hitherto exhibited, he will arrange for daily sittings throughout the week and extending to five hours per day, and that the Committee should sit in sections to overcome arrears and to keep abreast of its work; whether he will invite the co-operation of chambers of commerce and other commercial associations to nominate representatives to sit on the Committee; and whether, as the collection and examination of information are the primary objects of the Committee, he will direct that British Consuls abroad should, on the receipt of applications for the viséof passports, communicate the same to the Committee accompanied with their observations as to the granting or withholding thereof?

Sir R. HORNE: There is no foundation for the suggestion in my hon. Friend's question that the work of the Committee to which he refers is now in arrear. The number of applications at present waiting for consideration by the Committee is sixty-one. The Committee has dealt with a very large number of cases and is abreast of its work. As the principal object of the Committee is to consider the effect of the grant of such applications upon British labour in the country, it is not thought that the suggestions contained in the third and fourth part of the question would expedite the Committee's work.

FARM WORKERS (DURHAM AND YORKSHIRE).

Lieutenant-Colonel M. J. WILSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men registered for and awaiting employment as farm labourers, farm horsemen, farm dairymen, and shepherds on 5th May, 1919, at the following Employment Bureaux: Darlington, Richmond (Yorks), Bedale, Stokesley, Northallerton, and Barnard Castle?

Sir R. HORNE: The information in my possession indicates that on the 25th April (the latest date for which particulars are
available) there were no applicants for employment in farming occupations registered at Darlington, Bedale, Northallerton, or Barnard Castle. Four were registered at Richmond, one being described as a shepherd and three as cattlemen. Three were registered at Stokesley, two being described as horsemen and one as an agricultural labourer. All seven men were demobilised members of His Majesty's Forces.

TRADE BOARDS.

Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to set up a trade board in the wholesale and retail distributive trades; whether this would include over 2,000,000 workers, employed by different industries, whose particular industrial needs would be indistinguishable; whether the conference called to discuss the matter included all interests concerned; whether the recommendation to form a trade board was only carried by a bare majority; and whether he will explain the reason for the imposition of a trade board in this instance, in view of the recommendations of the Whitley Report?

Sir R. HORNE: It is proposed to apply the Trade Boards Acts to the wholesale and retail distributive trade. Two conferences have been held, to which all the organisations known to the Department in the trade were invited to send representatives. A resolution recommending that one trade board for the whole trade should be established was passed by 20 votes to 10 by a joint committee of employers' and workers' representatives elected by the delegates at the first general conference, but at the later conference it was unanimously agreed that the question of the number and scope of the trade boards required should be the subject of consideration by the nominees of the various organisations appointed to represent them on the trade board or boards. No definite decision has yet been reached as to whether there shall be one or more Orders covering the whole trade, both wholesale and retail, and I am at present awaiting the observations of these organisations on a proposed definition of the trade which has been circulated. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Reports of the Whitley Committee recommended the establishment of trade boards in those industries which were not suffi-
ciently organised for the establishment of joint industrial councils. I am satisfied that the degree of organisation of the employers and workers in the distributive trades is not sufficient to permit the formaiton of a joint industrial council, but is appropriate to the system of trade boards.

Mr. HAYDAY: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the proposal to establish a trade board for the distributive trades, he has received any representations from Scotland to the effect that the different conditions prevailing in Scotland render it essential that there should be a separate trade board for that country; and whether he will give this matter his sympathetic consideration?

Sir R. HORNE: I have received representations from certain sections of the distributive trade in Scotland requesting the establishment of a separate board for Scotland and I shall certainly give this my most careful consideration.

INSURANCE AGENTS (WAR BONUS).

Mr. ROBERT M'LAREN: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction existing among the insurance agents of the Prudential Assurance Company, Limited, owing to the fact that no war bonus has been paid them, although repeatedly asked for; and if he will communicate with the company and endeavour to have the matter satisfactorily settled so as to avoid trouble?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that insurance agents have asked for a war bonus, but I would remind my hon. Friend that a Committee inquired into this matter last year, and found that the financial position of the companies did not allow of the payment of any war bonus. I do not think that the circumstances are such as to justify any interference on my part.

Mr. M'LAREN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions of the employment of these industrial agents comes within the reference of the Committee recently set up?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware to which Committee my hon. Friend refers, but I understand that the Board of Trade propose to deal with the same question.

Mr. M'LAREN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee I refer to was announced as a Committee on Industrial Assurance?

Sir R. HORNE: That is a matter for the Board of Trade.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shares in these companies have advanced considerably since the Committee reported?

Sir R. HORNE: It is not my business to keep in touch with the share prices of these companies.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the agents and collectors of industrial assurance companies throughout the country on account of the terms and conditions of their employment; and if, under these circumstances, he will reconsider the desirability of including a specific reference to their case when appointing the Committee to inquire into industrial life assurance and of including a direct representative of the agents and collectors on the Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 5th May by my right hon. Friend to the question addressed to the Prime Minister by the Noble and gallant Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Major Earl Winterton) in which the composition of the Committee and the terms of reference were stated. From this answer it will be seen that it has been decided not to include representatives of the insurance agents, but consideration of their case is undoubtedly not excluded by the terms of reference Applications have been received from some of the associations which represent insurance agents to be allowed to give evidence, and such applications will be submitted to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

BELFAST ROPE WORKS.

Mr. DEVLIN: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of girls of the Belfast Rope Works are at present, out of employment owing to the slackness of trade; whether the out-of-work donation has been refused to these
girls, who are out of employment through no fault of their own; and whether he will take action to remedy this grievance?

Sir R. HORNE: The Out-of-Work Donation Scheme as amended for Ireland on the 6th March last provides that donation shall only be payable to workpeople who were insured under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts of 1911–1918, and to workpeople employed in trades certified by the Lord Lieutenant as being trades in which there is a substantial amount of unemployment directly caused by the cessation of hostilities. The rope-making trade is not so certified; and the workpeople are consequently not entitled to donation. Their case is, however, under consideration

TEMPORARY POSTMEN.

Mr. DEVLIN: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of men who were employed during the period of the War as temporary postmen in Belfast have been discharged since the cessation of hostilities to make room for returned soldiers; whether these men have been signing at the Labour Exchange for a number of weeks, but have not yet received any out-of-work donations; and whether he will now take steps to have them paid the unemployment grant?

Sir R. HORNE: For the reasons explained in the reply to the hon. Member's previous question, temporary postmen do not come within the scope of the Out-of-Work Donation Scheme in Ireland. The question whether it should be extended so as to include them is under consideration.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is desirable to drive these men out of employment and then refuse them the rights given to other workers by the State?

Sir R. HORNE: As the hon. Member puts his question, I do not think so, but this is a matter for the Lord Lieutenant to deal with.

Mr. DEVLIN: If that is the case, then I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. We have no confidence whatever in the Lord Lieutenant. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has always displayed great sympathy in this matter, to take it in hand and deal with it himself, as it is within his Department.

Sir R. HORNE: The matter as one which must be dealt with by the Lord Lieutenant, and I have no doubt he will act under guidance.

Captain REDMOND: Does that mean that we have no control over it in this House?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if the Lord Lieutenant does not give satisfaction we cannot discuss the matter in this House, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has always dealt with these matters, and as he rightly leaves himself open to criticism by Members of this House, will he promise to deal with this matter himself?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall deal with all matters that are relevant to ray Department.

Mr. DEVLIN: Has this question not always been within the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. This is the first time we have ever heard that the Lord Lieutenant has anything to do with it.

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend very well understands, in connection with these matters, that the Lord Lieutenant acts under advice, and the question is for the Irish Government guided by proper advisers.

Captain REDMOND: Where is the Irish Government?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Lieutenant never heard of this matter and never will hear of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — INFANTILE INSURANCE.

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that hardship is inflicted on the thrifty poor by reason of the law not allowing more than £6 to be paid on the death of a child of five years of age although the parents are willing to pay the extra contribution necessary to provide an amount in the event of death to secure decent burial, bearing in mind that the cost of burial to-day is double what it was when the Act was passed; and whether he will consider the desirability of legislation on the subject?

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question as it appears to relate to the
Friendly Societies Acts, but a similar difficulty arises in regard to industrial assurance companies and collecting societies. As he announced on Monday last a Committee has just been appointed to inquire into the business carried on by these organisations, and this is one of the matters which it will be the duty of the Committee to consider. I think that it would be best to await the Committee's Report before considering the desirability of amending the Friendly Societies Acts in this respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASKETS (IMPORTATION FROM AUSTRIA).

Mr. SITCH: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the approximate quantity of ready-made baskets imported into the United Kingdom from Austria since the date of the Armistice?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): No licences have been granted for Austrian baskets, and there is no evidence that any have been imported.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLY.

Major COURTHOPE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the supplies of coal allocated to individual rural districts by the Coal Controller are frequently unobtainable, and that many eases of distress are still arising in consequence, and what steps are being taken to meet this situation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The shortages in certain rural districts are engaging the Controller's attention, and the whole method of supply in these cases is under review.

Mr. ATKEY: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the suffering and loss experienced during the recent strikes in the colliery trade, he will consider the advisability of providing and storing in different parts of the country a reserve of coal for use in case of urgent necessity?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In so far as the output of coal will enable, the Coal Controller is considering the making of
arrangements for providing stocks of coal for the purpose of ensuring equal distribution throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL FOREST AUTHORITY.

Major COURTHOPE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill to establish a central forest authority for the United Kingdom will be introduced?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western.

Major COURTHOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the delay?

Mr. SHORTT: No, I am not able to do so.

Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he gave yesterday was most unsatisfactory, and there is no chance of any operations for at least a couple of years?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the non-publication of the Report by Lord Justice Bankes' Committee on the employment of aliens and persons of alien descent in the Civil Service is causing much doubt as to the attitude to be adopted towards the large number of Government employés who are dealt with in the Report; whether, seeing that the Report was presented to him in February last, he will now give orders for its publication; and what steps he is taking to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee?

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 48 and 49.
asked (1) what number of persons within the terms of reference to the Committee set up by him on 1st August last have been found by the Report of the Committee to be employed in Government offices during the War who are not children of natural-born subjects of this country or of an Allied country and in respect of whom no definite national reason for such employment has been found by the Committee; whether any and what number of these persons have been discharged from the
Government service; and for what reason have any been retained in face of the conclusions of the Committee; and (2) whether the Committee appointed to examine into the cases of aliens or descendants of aliens employed in Government offices, popularly known as Lord Justice Bankes' Committee, has presented its Report; when did such presentation take place; and why has the Report not been printed and presented to Parliament?

Mr. SHORTT: The Report referred to was presented to the Prime Minister on the 14th February by Lord Justice Bankes, with a letter, a portion of which I have the permission of the Lord Justice to read to the House:
There is a very general fear among I hose whose names appear in the Schedules to our Report that any publication of the Schedules would seriously affect their prospects of obtaining employment. We have done our best, in the body of our Report to remove any such prejudice, but we trust that you will consider the question of whether it is possible to publish the Report without the Schedules,
The Report will be published at an early date in the form recommended by the Committee. Any ground for immediate action having disappeared, action on the Report is being delayed, as the whole question of the employment of persons of alien origin in Government Departments is being considered by the Government.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What is the good of appointing a Committee if you neither publish their Report nor act upon it?

Mr. SHORTT: We happen to be doing both.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Why does the right hon. Gentleman not act upon this Report which I think contains 2,000 names?

Sir H NIELD: Is it really the intention of the Government to burke the whole business and let these people remain in Government offices?

Mr. SHORTT: Certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the suppression, by Allied troops of the revolutionary government in Hungary; and whether Count Apponyi is the Allied nominee for the head of the new counter-revolutionary government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: So far as my information goes, the revolutionary government in Buda Pesth is still in power. I am not aware of any ground for the suggestion in regard to Count Apponyi.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether there have been any developments in the organisation and constitution of the Imperial Cabinet since the announcement of its inception last summer?

Mr. SHORTT: Prime Ministers of the Dominions, as members of the Imperial War Cabinet, now have the right to communicate on matters of Cabinet importance direct with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. A further development is that each Dominion has the right to nominate a visiting or a resident Minister in London to be a member of the Imperial War Cabinet at meetings other than those attended by the Prime Ministers.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell us to what extent this new privilege has been availed of?

Mr. SHORTT: I must ask for notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 53.
asked the Prime Minister what Government Department has control over the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); and what Department or Minister is responsible to the House of Commons for the acts and defaults of this Board?

The DEPUTY MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): In practice the Minister of Munitions answers for the Board in this House. As to the extent of his responsibility I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that on 26th October, 1916, a Motion was moved in this House:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) should no longer be independent, of the control of Parliament, and that its proceedings and expenditure should be made subject to the control of a Minister responsible to Parliament.

The Motion was negatived.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not essential for the authority of Parliament that there should be a Minister responsible for the action of the Board which has been appointed by the Government?

Mr. ROSE: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Government with the view of issuing a weekly or a biweekly bulletin under the general title of "Who is Minister of Which"?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the authority of Parliament being preserved?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I agree that the position of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) might be described as extra constitutional, and was accepted by Parliament as a result of the abnormal conditions prevailing during the War. The present position is now being considered by the Government.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of that answer, and the fact that this Board was constituted for the purpose of expediting the production of munitions and other special war necessities which have now gone, will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Ministry the desirableness of abolishing the Board altogether, and thus removing one of those active causes of industrial unrest?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not necessary for me to represent to the Government that this should be considered. As announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech recently, the Government have the subject now under consideration.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Member say what he means by the phrase "extra-constitutional"?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! We are not halfway through the questions yet.

Colonel BURDON: 62.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the injury being done to the interests of temperance and also of the undercurrent of resentment and consequent unrest prevalent in all parts of England, Wales, and Scotland caused by the feeling among all classes that the restrictions on the sale of beer and spirits are being retained for obscure political purposes; and whether he will take steps to revert at once to pre-war conditions?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The whole question of the restrictions on the sale of beer and spirits is at present under consideration and no statement can be made.

Colonel THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will give a decision about the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: As soon as possible; I cannot say when.

Oral Answers to Questions — DE KEYSER'S HOTEL.

Captain GANZONI: 55 and 134.
asked (1) the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of De Keyser's Hotel, the Government will now accept the principle that persons whose property has been occupied or damaged under the Defence of the Realm Act should be paid fair and reasonable compensation as a matter of right; (2) the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of De Keyser's Hotel, he can now instruct the Defence of the Realm Royal Losses Commission to award compensation for the use of and damage to private property taken by the Department at Felixstowe; or what, steps he intends to take in the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The decision referred to in the question is the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords, and in these circumstances I cannot make any further statement upon the matter.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can my right hon. Friend tell me, in view of the very great interest which is taken in this matter, when the case is at all likely to come before the House of Lords?

Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir, I cannot, but there will be no avoidable delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to carry out the recommendations of the
Machinery of Government Committee with regard to the establishment of a Ministry of Scientific and Industrial Research?

Mr. SHORTT: Certain decisions have been reached which provide for the extension of the functions of the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, but no decision has yet been made with regard to the establishment of a separate Ministry of Research. This question is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).

Mr. ROBERT M'LAREN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Civil servants under a stated salary have had increases granted and that Civil servants who have been or may be retired on pension while in receipt of war bonus will have an increase to their pension owing to the high cost of living, he will grant a corresponding increase to the pensions of Civil servants retired before war bonuses were granted, seeing that they have to purchase the necessaries of life in the same markets?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not see my way to adopt this suggestion, which could not be carried into effect without legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISS DOUGLAS PENNANT.

Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before Miss Douglas Pennant's dismissal, a strict inquiry was made into alleged complaints against her; if so, whether Miss Douglas Pennant and her chief, Major-General Sir Godfrey Baine, were aware of such inquiry; and if he will inform the House whether Miss Douglas Pennant was given an opportunity of hearing and answering charges against her?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to answer this question. I can add nothing to the full statement which I made on 13th March in the Debate on the Air Force Estimates as to the circumstances in which Miss Douglas Pennant's appointment was terminated.

Sir O. THOMAS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is
aware that a Member of this House was officially informed by the Secretary to the Air Ministry that such an inquiry was held?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that I can add nothing to what I have already said in Debate, but I would remind my hon. Friend that I expressed my willingness to publish the correspondence which has taken place on this subject if I were pressed to do so by those who are acting for Miss Douglas Pennant.

Lieutenant-Colonel MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir William Robinson, Secretary to the Air Ministry, has endeavoured to influence the opinion of Members of this House with regard to this case, and does he consider that is proper work for this official?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of anything of the sort, and I do not know what "influencing opinion" means. It is certainly not proper to bring up such a matter in relation to a question to which it has no reference.

Sir O. THOMAS: Will my right hon. Friend inquire whether such an inquiry has been held?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; as I say, I have been conducting a correspondence with this lady on the subject of an inquiry, and I am quite prepared to lay the correspondence on the Table if her friends desire it to be laid.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

Mr. GILBERT: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if the Ministry of National Service is still in existence; what duties they are now carrying out; and if it is proposed to continue this Department or combine it with some other Ministry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Ministry of National Service is still in existence, but the staff has been reduced from 15,124 at 11th November to 286 as at 1st May. The officials still retained are all at headquarters and are employed mainly on winding up the accounts of the Ministry. When this work is completed the Ministry will be dissolved.

Sir C. HENRY: Could the hon. Gentleman say when the Ministry is likely to vacate the Windsor Hotel?

Mr. BECK: That is not a question for me, but for those who regulate Government accommodation.

Lieutenant-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is there still enough work at the Ministry for an Under-Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (TREASURY CONTROL).

Sir JOSEPH WALTON: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will restore full Treasury control in connection with the expenditure of public money by immediately prohibiting new expenditure on the part of the great spending Departments of the State unless Treasury sanction has been previously obtained?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr Chamberlain): All the exceptions to the normal rules enforced before the War requiring Treasury sanction for expenditure have now been revoked.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET PROPOSALS.

EXPENDITURE.

Sir J. WALTON: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to show the actual expenditure of the year 1919–20, it is necessary to hand back the 254 millions given as Appropriations in Aid of the year's expenditure; and whether he will have adjustments made in regard to these and otherwise as may be required to enable him to present a true balance-sheet in respect of the year 1919–20?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the purpose of the Budget, which deals primarily with the amount of revenue required to be raised to meet expenditure, the relevant figures are the net figures of Supply Grants, not the gross figures to which the hon. Member refers.

Sir J. WALTON: Is it not a fact that, in order to show the actual expenditure of 1919–20 it is necessary to add the £254,000,000, making, as a matter of fact, a total expenditure of £1,689,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; in order to show the total expenditure of any year it is necessary to add the Appropriations in Aid—the net sums voted by the House.

Sir J. WALTON: Is not that, therefore, necessary in order to give the House a true final balance-sheet for 1919–20?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In my Budget Statement I gave the final balance-sheet as far as I am in a position to do it.

REVENUE.

Sir J. WALTON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will adjust the Budget accounts by the removal of the £200,000,000 received for the sale of war material from being treated as revenue for the year 1919–20, and deal with this item as a repayment of capital in reduction of previous years' expenditure; and whether, in fact, the deficit of the year to be raised by borrowing is £433,000,000 instead of £233,000,000 as stated on Budget day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. So long as it is necessary to meet expenditure by borrowing, I see no advantage in this proposal.

Sir J. WALTON: Is it not a fact that the £200,000,000 to be derived from further sales of war materials is not revenue for the year 1919–20 in the proper sense of the word, but is revenue arising from the expenditure of previous years?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument on the Finance Bill.

PRE-WAR FUNDED DEBT.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the pre-war funded debt still in existence; at what sum can this debt be redeemed at the present market values; and whether the redemption of this pre-war funded debt would mean a saving to the nation which would set off the total amount of the premiums repayable on National War Bonds and the obligation which devolves upon the State in relation to War Saving Certificates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The stock now stands at about 55, but I am advised that any large purchases at or near that price would not be possible. But
even if the whole amount could be purchased at 55 with money borrowed at 5 per cent. or over, it is obvious that the operation would result in an increase of annual cost to the taxpayer. How far such annual loss would be covered, or more than covered, by future gains depends entirely on the value of money and the state of the national credit when the new securities mature for renewal or redemption. The suggested operation, if it could be carried out—and I do not think it could be carried out on any considerable scale—would, however, have the result of converting funded into unfunded debt, at a time when the unfunded debt is already of dangerous dimensions and of directly retarding that recovery of the national credit on which the operation itself would have to rely for its success.

POST OFFICE.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the deficit of £274,000 on Post Office services shown in Table IX. of the Financial Statement of Revenue and Expenditure is due to exceptional circumstances affecting Post Office administration; whether the sum of £3,430,000 provided by borrowing to meet capital expenditure upon postal services indicates that the Post Office is unable to meet maintenance and renewals out of revenue; and whether, in view of this deficit and new borrowing, the Post Office must now be regarded as a non-revenue-producing Department?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The deficit of £274,000 upon Post Office services shown in the table referred to is due principally to the war bonus and to the general rise in the cost of labour, materials and services, which has only in part been met by additions to the postage and other rates charged to the public. The cost of maintenance and renewals is always charged against revenue and is provided for in the Estimates. The sum of £3,430,000 to be raised by borrowing is capital expenditure upon new telephone works and upon the Post Office (London) Railway and is authorised by Act of Parliament. The war bonus, including the recent award, is estimated to amount to nearly £14,000,000 per annum, and so long as it continues at its present figure I fear the Post Office must be regarded as a non-revenue-producing Department.

DIRECTORS' FEES.

Sir H. NIELD: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce Amendments into the Finance Bill to entitle the directors of joint stock companies as of right to a reasonable and sufficient increase in fees to cover the additional labour of longer hours and greatly increased duties experienced by them during the War, and to redeem the grievance at present experienced of employés not infrequently obtaining remuneration on a considerably higher scale than that permitted to directors discharging duties of equal, and not infrequently of vastly greater, importance; and if he will make such ameliorative provision retrospective?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to introduce legislation suggested by the hon. Baronet.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COAL).

Sir J. WALTON: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the taxing of the coal consumers of the country by the imposition of an extra charge of 2s. 6d. per ton for coal in June of last year by the Coal Controller is in violation of the undertaking of His Majesty's Government in the Coal Control Bill that no charge should be placed upon the taxpayers in connection with that measure unless a financial Resolution were introduced in the House of Commons and a Bill passed authorising it; whether he is aware that this evasion brought nearly £20,000,000 additional Excess Profits Duty into the national Treasury; and whether this is a constitutional method of taxation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot agree that the additional charge of 2s. 6d. violated any pledge given by the Government.

Sir J. WALTON: May I ask if instead of 2s. 6d. the Coal Controller imposed 10s. bringing in £80,000,000 additional excess profits to the Treasury, if that would be a constitutional method of taxation?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

INCOME TAX.

Viscount DUNCANNON: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the fact that Income Tax is assessed on the pay of Army officers by the Income Tax authority at the War Office, without
formal notice to the officers concerned, deprives such officers of the right of appeal, and, under Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1915, renders the assessment final and binding for the purposes of Income Tax and Super-tax?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Income Tax is by law deducted from the pay of Army officers on the basis of the actual pay for the year of assessment. I am advised that there is no statutory right of appeal against these or any other assessments under Schedule E, by Departmental Commissioners. On the other hand, I understand that full particulars of such assessments are supplied on application by the taxpayer, and that any necessary adjustments are made as a consequence of representations which he may make. As in the case of all classes of income, the amount assessed to Income Tax for any given year in respect of an officer's pay is returnable for Super-tax purposes for the following year.

Viscount DUNCANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the arrangement just or equitable to the officers affected?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are in the same position as Ministers. Whether it is equitable I am not quite sure, but if my Noble Friend has cases of injustice or hardship arising out of this state of things before him, I would be very glad if he would submit them to me, so that I can test the grievance with a view to a remedy if there is a substantial grievance.

Major KELLEY: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give his practical consideration to those taxpayers who come under the scheme of allowing a further rebate for those who keep their children at school over sixteen years of age?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 20th February to the Member for Newcastle North.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Major KELLEY: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in dealing with Imperial Preference, he will consider the advisability of imposing the full tax upon import, then to estimate the amount of rebate and pay it over periodically to the Government of the Colony concerned, so
that it may be devoted to purposes benefiting the whole of the people of that Colony, seeing that in this way the people of this country would see the cost of the preference and those of the Colony would appreciate what was being done for it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I cannot accept this suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANY REGISTRATION.

Sir H. NIELD: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the diversion of capital from this country consequent on the claim of the Inland Revenue to assess for taxation the profits made abroad of an English registered company, though such profits may not be remitted here, he will introduce Amendments in the Finance Bill in order to discourage investors from adopting the growing practice of registering companies in foreign countries and of transferring the principle office of English companies abroad?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The important question to which my hon. and learned Friend refers is one of those which must be investigated by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax which is now sitting.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SPELTER OUTPUT.

Mr. HOLMES: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has been buying the total British spelter output at £60 per ton and selling it to merchants a £38 per ton; what has been the total loss in these transactions; whether this arrangement has now been terminated; and whether any and, if so, what substituted arrangement has been made?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): During the War the Government have been buying the total British spelter output. The purchase price was fixed at £56 per ton, and the selling price at £57. Various increases in wages had as they became operative to be added to the £56 basis buying price, and these raised such price to about £60 a ton. These advances were not added to the selling price because the total Ministry purchases showed a clear average profit when reselling at £57. By the 3rd February, a gradual decline in the world's price following the Armistice necessitated a lower selling price which has finally
fallen to £38. As, however, the Ministry supply the smelters with the bulk of their raw material in the form of zinc concentrates, at a price based on a £56 value of spelter, it cannot be said that they are incurring the loss indicated by the fact of apparently buying at £56 and selling at £38. In view of the price charged for zinc concentrates the smelters are at the present moment making no profits. By a decision of the Cabinet the contracts have been continued until the 5th November, in view of the importance of sustaining this vital key industry during the present period of transition.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Mr. HOLMES: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have made a contract with the Zinc Producers Association Proprietary, Limited, of Australia, for ten years for the supply of zinc concentrates; and, if so, what are its terms?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By a contract made in April, 1918, with the Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited, His Majesty's Government purchased certain stocks of concentrates held by the association at the 31st December, 1917, together with the whole Australian output (less certain reservations) controlled by the association, for the period of the War and ten years thereafter, subject to maxima of 250,000 tons a year during the War and the ensuing twelve months, and 300,000 tons a year thereafter. The purchase is at a flat price for the War period and five years thereafter, with provision as to division of profits on resale of a part of the quantities taken; for the remaining period it is based on the average London market price of spelter, but with a guaranteed minimum.

Sir C. HENRY: May I ask how the Government is going to deal with these concentrates?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SMELTING COMPANY, LIMITED, AVONMOUTH.

Mr. HOLMES: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any subsidy has been paid towards the cost of
the works of the National Smelting Company, Limited, at Avonmouth; whether the company has suspended building operations; and whether it is the present intention of the Government to subsideise the company or to take over the unfinished works?

Mr. HOPE: No subsidy has been paid towards the cost of the works of the National Smelting Company, Limited, at Avonmouth. Certain advances, at interest, have been made by the Minister of Munitions to the company towards the cost. These advances are repayable at the expiration of ten years after the termination of the War and are secured by debentures. I understand that building operations have recently been suspended on the company's works at Avonmouth. The position of the company is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATENTS.

Mr. PRESTON: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that inventors owning patents which they have been unable to develop owing to the War have lost several years of patent protection, whether the Government propose to compensate the inventors by prolonging the lives of such patents beyond the usual fourteen years?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Proposals of the Government upon this question will be included in the Bill to amend the Patents Act which my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (GEORGIAN TROOPS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British troops in the Caucasus have been in action lately with Georgian levies; and what is the position politically of these Georgian troops?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The British troops in the Caucasus have not been in action against the Georgians at any time. The situation is that Georgians attacked General Denikin's detachments on the Bzib River south of Gagri and drove them back beyond the Mekhadir River (north of Gagri), on which river they halted. This advance was made in spite of protests of the British Commander-in-Chief. The
Georgians implicated were accompanied by local bandits and Bolsheviks. A threat of force, by the dispatch of British troops to Gagri, has stopped any further action.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the Georgean Republic has plenipotentiaries in Paris at the Peace Conference?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know about that at all, but we are not allowing General Denikin to attack the Georgians and we are not allowing the Georgians to attack General Denikin.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILVER (MAXIMUM PRICE).

Sir C. HENRY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the removal of the maximum price for silver bullion in America, steps will be taken to remove the maximum price in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, an order is being issued to-day removing the maximum price on silver bullion in the United Kingdom.

Sir C. HENRY: In addition to the removal of price, may I take it that the restrictions in dealing with silver will also be done away with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any other restrictions, and I do not think there are or that there is any reason for maintaining them. I would not like to pledge myself absolutely, but I do not think there are any.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK SUPPLY.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: (by Private Notice)
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware of the serious position that has arisen in the Preston and Southport areas owing to the non-supply of milk; also to his refusal to include the Ribblesdale Valley area in the advance of 2d. per gallon granted to neighbouring districts, and what steps he has taken to deal with the deadlock?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have not received notice of the question.

Lieutenant-Colonel WHITE: I personally handed this, addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, and marked "Urgent," to a messenger at the door of this House at 6.0 p.m. yesterday.

Mr. ROBERTS: I will at once inquire into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

SOLDIER ON LEAVE.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a soldier who enlisted in 1914, was in France for fifteen months, is now stationed in North Russia, and is at present on leave in this country, has to return to Russia, or whether he can be demobilised in this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not received this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH ESTIMATES.

Mr. MacVEAGH: (by Private Notice)
asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state when the Irish Estimates will be set down for discussion, and, if not, whether he will arrange for facilities to be given to debate the case of the imprisonment of four men in Newry?

Mr. SAMUELS: With regard to the latter part of the question, there is no necessity to debate the matter, as an Order for their release was issued to-day, and if they are not released at this moment they will be released this evening.

Captain REDMOND: Arising out of the first part of the question, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be in the happy position of being able to state that the Chief Secretary will return to the House of Commons?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In the absence of the Leader of the House, I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private, notice, namely, whether it is correct to assume from the official summary of the Peace Treaty published to-day that, so, far as cash indemnities are concerned, the only points so far definitely settled are that Germany
is to make reparation for damage to persons and property under the seven heads enumerated in the summary, the total obligation in respect of which is to be notified not later than the 1st May, 1921;that she is to reimburse Belgium all sums borrowed by that country from the Allies, that within two years Germany is to pay £l,000,000,000 sterling, a further £2,000,000,000 in bonds at various rates of interest with a sinking fund beginning in 1926, and a further £2,000,000,000 in 5 per cent. bonds under terms not yet fixed; and whether these prospective payments amount in the aggregate to £5,000,000,000 sterling and are subject to possible deductions in respect of the cost of the Army of Occupation and other matters?

Mr. SHORTT: Before answering this question, I should like to have an opportunity of communicating with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is on his way back from Paris. I should be very much obliged if my hon. Friend would postpone the question until Monday.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I shall be pleased to postpone the question till Monday, but I desire to give notice that, if the answer is unsatisfactory in my view, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Sir E. CARSON: Will the House have an opportunity, if so desired, of discussing the Peace terms?

Mr. SHORTT: I would ask that that question be repeated when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British delegates have formulated our reparation claims in Paris, and have they laid our claims in full on the Peace table, and will any moneys which are paid during the next two years only be considered as payment on account?

Mr. SHORTT: I must have notice of that.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that very complicated question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will the Home Secretary tell us what the business is for next week, and further, if the Debate on the Financial Resolutions finishes I before eleven o'clock to-night, what other business the Government proposes to take?

Mr. SHORTT: With regard to the business for next week, I would ask my right hon. Friend to repeat that question later in the day.
To-day, if the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions be completed, he will take the Second and Third Orders [Disabled Men. (Facilities for Employment) Bill and the Wages (Temporary Regulations) Extension Bill], and any other Orders which are ready.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: Not till next week.

STANDING COMMITTEES (OFFICIAL REPORT).

Mr. DEVLIN: I should like to raise a matter which, I think, will be regarded as important by Members of this House—namely, the question of reporting the proceedings of Committees upstairs. When the new Procedure Rules were under discussion in the House, I understood that the promise was given that when these Bills were sent to Committees, the proceedings of those Committees would be published and that a record would be kept of the business that took place at those Committees. We have been sitting on a Committee now for the last five or six days, and we have been told that there is not to be any report of those proceedings. As a matter of fact, I believe that a great many Members of this House would have hesitated considerably before they permitted the functions of the House of Commons Committees being transferred to a Committee upstairs if those proceedings were to be carried out without an Official record of the proceedings. In my judgment, it is a very great blow at the constitutional rights and privileges of the House of Commons to have important Bills of the character of the Bill we are discussing upstairs carried on without any official record being
kept. It is only right to bring this matter before the House to have your opinion, Mr. Speaker, upon it, and also to have the opinion of the hon. Members who are interested in the publication of these proceedings.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not lately refreshed my memory by looking at the Debate which occurred, but my recollection is that opinion was very much divided as to whether it was desirable to have a record, not of the official proceedings, but of the speeches. Everybody was agreed that there should be a record of the official proceedings. That, I believe, is kept, and is daily circulated. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes, I see it every morning. That is the official record of the proceedings. As to whether there is to be a record of the speeches which are delivered in Committee I think the matter was left thus: The House not being unanimous about it, my recollection is that the Leader of the House said that there was no reason why a record of the speeches should not be kept, if application were made to me, and sufficient cause shown, and that I would give directions that the Official Reporter of the Debates should attend. That has been done in the case of three of the Committees. In the case of two others application has been made for the attendance of an Official Report of the Debates, and I gave instructions that an Official Reporter should be sent to the particular Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers but, unfortunately, no Official Reporter can be found. Our own staff, as the hon. Member will readily see, is very severely taxed by their attendance here every day from a quarter to three until eleven or half-past eleven o'clock, and with the attendance upon the Standing Committees. We have no more reporters available for the purpose. The Editor of the Official Report set to work to try to find some other men or women who were capable of doing the reporting. He consulted various agencies, but none of the agencies could provide anybody who was capable of doing the work. He then, I believe, also applied to some of the leading newspapers, who regretfully had to inform him that they had nobody here whom they could lend him for the purpose. In these circumstances, it will be impossible, until the Committees which are now being reported have concluded their labours, to find any reporters who are available for the purpose.

Mr. DEVLIN: With great respect, will you kindly tell us, Sir, what you mean by
an official record being made. You said you have seen the official record. I have never heard of it, and have never seen it, apart altogether from the speeches delivered at the meetings of the Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: The official record is kept by the Clerk of the Committee. He keeps a record of what Amendments are proposed, what becomes of the Amendments, what Clauses are passed, and what Clauses are rejected. That record is circulated. I cannot say whether it is circulated every morning, but it is circulated at frequent intervals. I will send for my papers, and show them to the hon. Member, if he likes. I think that he will be able to obtain them without any difficulty in the Vote Office.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for your courtesy in offering me your Papers, but I should not like to rob you of them. None of us have ever seen any copies of the official record. [Hon. Members: "We all have."]

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member does not study his Papers as closely as I do.

Mr. DEVLIN: Not only do I study the Papers, but the hon. Members who are on that Committee with me have not received these Papers, and therefore they have not studied them either. Is this due to our ignorance or to the inefficiency of those in charge of this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will send the hon. Member a copy.

DIVISIONS.

Lieutenant-Colonel A. C. MURRAY: I beg to ask a question relating to the practice in the Division Lobbies of this House. Prior to the War the practice was for every Division to have three clerks who ticked off the Members as they went through the Division Lobby. That ensured the maximum possible rapidity in taking Divisions. Now there are only two clerks. I desire to ask you whether it would not be possible to revert to the former practice. It would certainly be acceptable to the Government and to a great many of their supporters who desire to vote with them?

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter was considered at the commencement of the Session, and, after making full inquiries, I came to the conclusion that it would not
facilitate the rapidity with which Members passed through the Division Lobby. The block occurs in going out of the door where Members have to go singly. Therefore, the passing through three clerks at the turnstiles would not facilitate matters, while it would add largely to the expense and would involve considerable addition to the staff of clerks. Several more would have to be added to their body in the course of attendance day and night. For this reason it was not adopted.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Ten Members (in respect of the Check weighing in Various Industries Bill):Major Cohen, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Sir Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hirst, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Alfred Law, Mr. Robert M'Laren, Colonel Robert Peel, and Sir Joseph Walton; and the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Animals (Anæsthetics) Bill: Colonel Archer-Shee, Mr. Cape, Sir William Watson Cheyne, Mr. Finney, Mr. France, Colonel Raymond Greene, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Guinness, Mr. John Jones, Sir Philip Magnus, Mr. Mallalieu, Dr. Donald Murray, Lieutenant-Colonel Raw, Mr. Stanton, Major Waring, and Sir William Whitla.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee E: Dr. Addison and Sir Kingsley Wood.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: further reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Ten Members (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Bill: Mr. Briant, Mr. Cairns, Brigadier-General Sir Hill Child, Mr. Denison-Pender, Mr. Preston, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Sitch, Sir Robert Thomas, and Mr. Aneurin Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF WAYS AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL

So far as amended in the Standing Committee, to be printed. [No. 73.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Hartlepool Gas and Water Company to construct water-wars, to confer further powers upon that company in connection with their undertaking; and for other purposes." [Hartlepool Gas and Water [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill [Lords.]

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILL PRESENTED.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL,—"to amend the Law with respect to the supply of Electricity," presented by Mr. Shortt; supported by Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. Munro, Mr. Macpherson, Sir Hamar Greenwood, and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered, That Mr. Tyson Wilson be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure.

Ordered, That Mr. Rose be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.— [1ST MAY.]

Resolution reported,

INCOME TAX.

"That—
(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, at the rate of six shillings in the pound, and the same Super-tax shall be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and eighteen; and
(b) the like provisions shall hare effect with respect to the annual value of property as had effect with respect thereto during the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and eighteen; and
(c) it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

Resolution read a second time.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), providing that the tax shall be levied only upon incomes exceeding £250 a year, is out of order, because it would impose an extra and increased charge on the subject.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ARNOLD: In discussing this Resolution I wish to urge as strongly as I can that the exemption for Income Tax should be increased from £130 to £250 a year. I would argue this mailer on two main grounds—first, on the ground of principle, and, secondly, as a business proposition. On the question of principle official statistics show that in view of the general cost of living £250 a year now represents only about £125 a year in pre-war values. Also the rate of Income Tax is much higher than in pre-war days. Not only that, but other taxation on people with small incomes has been greatly increased. In my view the taxation on the poorer classes is much too heavy to-day. The present limit of £130 a year really represents about £65 a year in pre-war value. Therefore, in effect, this Resolution and the Budget levy Income Tax on incomes of £65 a year in pre-war value. To levy Income Tax on such a low figure is really in direct opposition to the principle of
sound taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me yesterday, What are you going to do about taxes on people with small incomes? The reply is very simple and definite. There ought to be no taxation at all, except on pure luxuries—on those with incomes below a decent level of subsistence. But the Income Tax proposed by the Budget on those with small incomes violates this cardinal principle of taxation. We are living in a period of reconstruction. Everybody is talking about it. I urge that we should reconstruct our tax system in accordance with sound principles of taxation. The simple truth is that in a great many cases, unless the proposal I am putting forward be accepted, Income Tax will be taken from money which is required to buy the necessaries of life. This is not only a gross hardship on the poorer classes, but it also is unwise from the point of view of the State. To take incomes from wage earners and others with small incomes who really need the money to buy nourishing food is to reduce the efficiency of the workers, and it does that just at the time when it is most important in the national interest, and in view of the necessity of getting our industries going, that the efficiency of the workers should be maintained as far as possible. During the War every care was taken, and wisely, to raise the physical efficiency of recruits to the highest point and to maintain it at the highest point, and I contend that it would be well that the physical efficiency of the workers should also receive more consideration. It was wise in the interests of the State to develop the physical efficiency of the recruits. It would be equally wise in the interests of the State to do everything possible to develop the physical efficiency of the workers. To take Income Tax from people who need the money for a decent level of living is going counter to what ought to be the right post-war policy of the country, and that is to build up the health and physique of the people who have suffered so much during the last four years. Owing to the strain of the War and all that has occurred during the last few years, the general standard of health of the people was never lower than it is at present. It is always a bad principle to levy Income Tax on those who are below a decent standard of life, and it is particularly unwise at present. It would pay the State well, quite apart from the relief to individuals, to raise the exemption to £250 a year.
In these days very little attention is paid to principles either in taxation or anything else, and I would pass on to discuss the matter as a business proposition. My contention is that it is really not worth while from the point of view of revenue to levy Income Tax on those with less than £250 a year. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions, and I hope he will answer as definitely as he can. What is the estimated net yield of the Income Tax which will be got from incomes of less than £250 a year? When in 1915 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the exemption limit of Income Tax from £160 to £130, he said that from that change he expected to get, in a full year, £939,000 of revenue gross. It is true that the rate of the tax then was somewhat lower than it is now, but that abatements were few and also smaller I and others pointed out that it was really a trivial revenue to get considering all the trouble and the cost of collection involved. Even the gross sum of £939,000 would be reduced by the cost of collection. No doubt the net revenue to be got from the Income Tax on incomes, below £250 a year under this Resolution will distinctly exceed £939,000, but the net figure really cannot be many millions. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House the estimated net yield of the tax to be got from incomes below £250 a year during this current year, and not last year, because last year unemployment was much less prevalent than it is this year. Unemployment is now rife, and it will in many industries continue irregular and unstable probably for a considerable time. This is most important, and has a distinct bearing on what I am saying, because it means first that the yield of the tax on incomes below £250 a year will be smaller than ever, and consequently that the difficulty and expense of collecting the tax will be enormously increased because many men will be moving about from one job to another. The cost of collecting the Income Tax on these small incomes is really out of proportion to the revenue obtained. In November, 1915, the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was discussing proposals to get Income Tax from people with very small incomes. He was referring to the cost of collection, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted him and said, "There are the small shop-
keepers." What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day say after that interruption? He said:
There are some hundreds of thousands, I may say millions, of people who do not belong to the wage-earning people, small shopkeepers and men who do odd jobs of all kinds. How are you going to collect from them? The collection of it alone will cost the Exchequer 70 per cent. of what it; actually gets, which is the conclusion of the Inland Revenue.
Surely that is a very practical consideration in considering the matter. I do not argue for a moment that it will cost 70 per cent. in every case, but according to the official statement then made, in a quite important proportion of cases the estimate of the Inland Revenue was that the cost of collection would be 70 per cent. Not only is the cost of collection on the small incomes great, but the whole proceeding causes a great amount of irritation, and it tends, particularly amongst the workers, to increase the unrest which is such a serious feature of our national life. The whole process means an immense amount of irritation and expense. I do not believe human ingenuity could have devised a system which would cause, so far as these small incomes are concerned, more friction, more inconvenience, and more work for a less result. But although the revenue obtained is small to the Exchequer, the tax is a real hardship on those who have to pay it, because their means are so small. I know it will be argued that there are numerous abatements, and that these tend to diminish the burden. My right hon. Friend (Sir T. Whittaker) a few days ago, in trying to bolster up what I thought was a singularly weak case, pointed out that a man with a wife and three children did not pay Income Tax unless his income was £220 a year, and if he had a wife and five children he did not pay Income Tax unless he had an income of £270 a year. That is perfectly true, and I rejoice that it is so, but that is really an argument for what I am urging, because all these abatements—and I think it has been most wise to give them—reduce the yield of the tax, but they enormously increase the cost of collection. In a great many cases forms have to be filled up, and have to be carefully examined by Inland Revenue authorities, and very often in the end, owing to abatements and so forth, there is practically no revenue got at all. The whole process is costly and wasteful in the extreme. I contend that it would be better to put an end once and for all to
this source of irritation and hardship, make a clean cut, and raise the Income Tax exemption level to £200 a year.
It is contended I know, and my right hon. Friend (Sir T. Whittaker) argues this, that although relief is given in the case of married men with children, yet single men with less than £250 ought to pay Income Tax. After all, who are these single men who are getting less than £250 a year? Most of them are young men and the vast number of them have fought in the War. Many of them have just been, and more will shortly be, demobilised. Most of them have lost two or three of the best business years of their lives. Their careers have been gravely prejudiced. Nothing can ever restore to them the same chance that they would have had before the War, but the exemption from Income Tax below £250 will do a little and give them a somewhat better prospect. It will enable them perhaps to save a little money with a view to improving their position and starting in business in a small way on their own account, and with a view to marriage. I have no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, "This may be all very well, but I must have money. I have got to get revenue." I contend that you may get revenue too dearly if you get it by reducing the efficiency of the workers, and thus injure industrial production. Moreover, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to be so much concerned with the necessity of getting revenue when he introduced his Preference duties. In order to introduce Preference, he cheerfully sacrificed some millions of revenue. However, let it be agreed that if the Income Tax limit is raised to £250 a year the small net loss, speaking comparatively, to the Revenue should be made good. But let the Chancellor of the Exchequer get the revenue in a way which is more economically sound and which would be much less costly and will cause much less hardship. He can get it in a way which will not cause any real hardship at all. He will not yet have a capital levy, which would solve all these problems. Let him make good the small loss from raising the Income Tax limit to £250 a year by increasing the tax on bigger incomes at the other end of the scale. All that will be necessary will be to increase the rate of tax on the bigger incomes by a copper or two and to make
some slight changes in the Super-tax scale. If he will do that he will make good the revenue which he might lose by the change which I am urging him to make, and a vast amount of needless work, irritation, and hardship will be avoided. I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a sympathetic reply to what I have said, more particularly as he himself, in November, 1914, commented on the great expense of collecting tax on these small incomes from a large class of people.

Mr. CLYNES: Whatever be the view of hon. Members on the appeal which the hon. Member has made, I can assure them that very real feeling exists in working-class quarters on this subject. I had an opportunity, for instance, on Saturday and Monday last of attending working-class meetings where this scheme formed part of the resolutions which were submitted and passed, and I dare say the Chancellor of the Exchequer will by this time have received very many resolutions from different working-class quarters. The feeling is very real and quite genuine, and I think a case can be made out for serious consideration of the appeal which has been made. When the limit of taxation was lowered sometime ago in order to bring in a larger number of taxpayers, it was submitted as a necessary war measure, and certainly was regarded by those affected by it as a temporary step which, in the circumstances, perhaps the Government was justified in taking. The War is over and the working classes in the course of the War were deservedly praised for the part which they took in it, and the workers are now looking for an escape from some of the burdens which, were imposed upon them as necessary War measures. Was this tax put on as a temporary and necessary measure, or was it intended to be a permanent charge upon the wage-earning community? The working class view is that it was intended as a temporary measure, and we have reached a point now where we could well find even the large sums which are required from other sources, and so give this necessary relief to a class which is already heavily burdened. Since the Income Tax level was lowered, other very serious things have happened to the workers which strengthen their appeal for a change. The enormous increase in the cost of living requires only to be mentioned to impress us all at once with the very serious difficulties with which the
workers are faced. Not merely has there been an increase in the cost of food and things which are immediately essential to existence, but everything else has very materially increased, and there is not now amongst the working classes the same opportunity for saving as there was prior to the War. If they save anything at all now, it must be at the cost of making very great sacrifices in regard to forfeiting the things of which they are sorely in need. This increase in the cost of living has been greater than was the case when the Income Tax line was lowered, and that very much strengthens the case which can be made out for the change for which we appeal.
But I base my claim for this alteration mainly on the ground of its being unfair and unreasonable to tax any class which is limited to an income affording only the bare necessities of existence. We have commonly accepted the doctrine that taxation should be in the degree of one's ability to bear the burden. This is a form of indirect taxation which the working classes in question are not able to bear at all. They carry a very heavy weight of taxation in many forms of indirect taxes which are imposed upon various commodities. The greater part of the worker's wage is spent week by week on food, as the means of keeping him alive for the week to go on working the following week. He cannot automatically save, as do those who may be fairly described as the more favoured classes. He pays very heavily in many forms of indirect tax, and he looks upon this additional charge as a deduction from his wages, as a form of tax on the pay which by his hard labour in the week he has earned. I may be told there are very many workers who have done extremely well during the War in the matter of earnings. I do not deny that. There is a comparatively small proportion of workers whose wages have been materially increased. I suppose they gave by their service a certain war value to the country in the form of labour which entitled them to that increased pay. At any rate, there is no denying the fact that they have got it. We are not appealing for that class. The really highly-paid wage earner, who has earned very large wages during the War and maybe earning them now, and may continue to earn them, comes not within our appeal. In these days of the value of money in relation to commodities the limit which has been suggested in the Amendment will not give any undue protection to the higher-paid wage
earners of the country. A man in these days cannot be said to be highly paid if ha is not earning more than £250. I am sure if the House could go back to the time when it was possible for a worker to maintain a family upon, say, 30s. a week it would not have thought of arranging its system of taxation in any way so as to tax a wage on that level. Yet that is virtually what we are doing to-day, taking into account the altered conditions in the purchasing power of money. Apart from the ability of my right hon. Friend to turn to other sources of revenue if he so desires, which course is open to him, it is totally unreasonable to take what is the means of subsistence from a heavily burdened section of the community who earn their money by very arduous toil. There is a very large section of the community who are very heavily taxed and who really do not feel the burden of taxation at all in the sense that heavy taxation deprives them of any of the things they want. That, I submit, is a reasonable standpoint from which to look at these matters. Taxation expressed in very large figures is secured from a class which need not sacrifice to pay and which need not deprive itself of any of the amenities of life or any of its conditions of security. If that is the fortune of one class, at least you want to be fair to the class which cannot pay taxation without forfeiting bread and butter, or at any rate without forfeiting some of the means of existence, such as household necessities, clothing, etc., which are not forfeited at all in the payment of taxation by the more favoured section of the community. There is a very strong feeling prevailing on this matter, and I would ask the generous attention of my right hon. Friend to it. I would ask him not to be unmindful of the main causes which are operating in the country to stimulate and create unrest, and I am certain that the minds of those who earn their wages with very hard labour would be eased very much if they could receive what they consider the barest justice in this matter.

The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me an appeal which he has a right to make. As we all gladly recognise, whilst he has stood well forward in promoting the great objects which he has in view, he has done much to still unrest and to promote good feeling and harmony among the com-
munity, and he may be quite sure that I am only too anxious to respond in as favourable a manner as I can to any appeal in that sense coming from one so qualified to make it. My right hon. Friend asks me a quite definite question. He said the working men regard the imposition of Income Tax on the lower level of wages to-day as a war imposition, and he asks whether it was a war tax or not. The same question is addressed to me in regard to almost every charge which was imposed or increased during the course of the War Of course, they were war charges in the sense that it was the War which gave rise to them and the necessity for them, and the signature of peace does not do away with that necessity. It is not as if the expenses of the War were paid for and done with, as if the taxes raised during the War year after year had met the annual expenditure. A war tax of necessity lasts after the war is ended, because the war purposes which it was imposed to meet lasts after the war ends. That does not mean that as it comes within our power we are not to review these charges and reduce them where we may in the order of urgency as it appears to us. But I do not think that people should object to pay a tax unless there be something in the nature of the tax which makes it too grossly unfair and inexpedient to continue. At the moment after the signature of the Armistice it is not reasonable to expect that the taxes which were imposed to meet war charges should cease, without any respect to the charges which remain after the fighting has finished.
I will answer as well as I can a definite question put to me by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Arnold). He wanted to know what would be the loss of revenue in the current year if no Income Tax was charged on incomes below £250

Mr. ARNOLD: The net loss.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member first asked me the loss and then the cost of collection and, therefore, the net cost. I am not able to answer as to the net cost without notice. If he likes to put a question on the Paper for next week I will endeavour to procure for him the best answer I can on what must be rather a speculative subject. I do not wish to hazard any percentage of the cost of collection without the opportunity of consulting my expert advisers, but I venture to say that anything like 70 per cent.,
which he quoted in connection with a particular class of case, as an answer given some years ago, is quite out of it. I am quite certain that that bears no relation to the facts to-day. I hazard the opinion that he must have exaggerated or overestimated the cost of collection. However, if he will put down a question about this, I will give him the best answer I can. He will not expect me to be able to answer a question of that kind put to me to-day without notice and without an opportunity of consultation.

Mr. ARNOLD: In regard to the 70 per cent., I said I did not suggest 70 per cent. in all cases, but in that particular case. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were some millions of people involved and the cost of the collection of revenue for that particular class was 70 per cent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Circumstances change as collection improves and greater facilities are available. I do not think that the figure then would be applicable to to-day. However, I am not in a position to answer the question to-day. Apart from the question of the cost of collection, I am informed that the net loss in the present year would be £8,000,000 on the assumption, and it is a very big assumption, that if you exempt all incomes below £250 from tax you make no alteration in the abatement made above £250. On the principle laid down by the hon. Member and by my right hon. Friend, it is quite clear that you would have to revise the abatements and reliefs above £250 if you exempt all incomes below £250 from taxation. In that case the loss would be not £8,000,000, but double that amount—perhaps £20,000,000. Anything from £16,000,000 to £20,000,000. I cannot give the exact figure.
Turning from the specific questions put to me, let me deal with the larger issues. No doubt there is great impatience amongst the working men at this form of taxation, bat what form of taxation do the party opposite consider that it is proper, and in what form would they think it proper, for working men to contribute to the expenses of the country in which they live, and a large part of whose expenditure is devoted to purposes mainly accruing for the benefit of the working classes? There must be some form in which they can contribute. If you say that this method of direct assessment of wages and recovery afterwards, when some of the
wages have been spent, is an inconvenient method, and that we should fix the tax in some other way, that is a proposition I can understand if it stood by itself. But it is well known, and the hon. Member for Penistone expressly said, that hon. Members on those benches desire that there should be no indirect taxation. If there is to be no indirect taxation and no direct taxation, how is any contribution to be raised. Is it your contention that there should be no contribution? If so, then frankly I join issue with my right hon. Friend opposite. Comparisons are made between the situation now and the circumstances before the War. The cost of living is dwelt upon as one factor. That is, I think, very much over-estimated. The right hon. Gentleman the other day spoke of it as being 130 per cent. That is the cost given by the "Labour Gazette" in February this year as the increase in the retail price of certain articles of food. It is not the estimated increase in the cost of living of any particular individual or family. The estimate given by Lord Sumner's Committee of the rise between June, 1914, and September, 1918, was not 130 per cent. but 80 per cent. That 80 per cent. or 130 per cent., whatever the figure may be, includes all the increases in indirect taxation, and you must not plead that increase in indirect taxation twice over.

Mr. ARNOLD: It is only 7 per cent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, but it is 7 per cent., and 7 per cent. off 80 per cent. leaves 73 per cent. and not 80 per cent. An hon. Gentleman who prides himself on his accuracy should not count 7 per cent. twice over, or defend doing so when it is pointed out.

Mr. ARNOLD: Is it not the case that the Board of Trade "Labour Gazette" for the present month states that the rise in the price of certain articles to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is 110 per cent., of which 7 per cent. is taxation, reducing it to 103 per cent., if you care to do that. Nevertheless, that 7 per cent. is still there, and it has to be borne. A further calculation as to the whole cost of living, making certain calculations which the Board of Trade has done, points to the conclusion, when every possible allowance has been made, that the rise in the general cost of living cannot be put at less than 95 per cent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is very different from 130 per cent.

Mr. ARNOLD: I did not say it was 130 per cent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of my difficulties. I am trying to argue the question as well as I can, and when I answer the arguments of one hon. or right hon. Member some other hon. Member gets up and says his argument was different. The hon. Member may desire to disclaim and I accept his disclaimer of responsibility for the accuracy of the figures given by my right hon. Friend opposite yesterday. Let him do that but why blame me? The right hon. Gentleman was led into error yesterday in counting increased taxation on food twice over. I observe that this increase in the cost of living is accompanied by a co-relative comparative decrease in the value of money. If the working man's £2 to-day is only worth £1 as it stood before the War, the rich man's £10,000 is in the same position. You must not assume that when the £1 is in the hands of the working man it is only worth 10s., but that when it passes to that objectionable creature the capitalist it suddenly recovers its value and is worth a full 20s. After all what is sauce for one is sauce for the other. I want the House to take the comparison with what existed before the War. You must not consider only the change in the level of the Income Tax. You must consider the other changes that have been made in the Income Tax. At the present time there are allowances made against the assessment of £25 for each child or adopted child, £25 for a wife, £25 for a housekeeper relative who looks after the infant children of a widower, and £25 for a disabled or incapacitated relative. Before January, 1914, with which we are asked to make the comparison, the allowance for a child was £10 instead of £25, and none of the other allowances were in existence.
In addition a workman may claim an allowance for insurance on his own life or that of his wife, for so much of his contribution to a trade union as is allocated to superannuation or death benefits, and for similar contributions to other friendly societies, for payment on account of tools or other expenses incurred on account of through his employment, and for the cost of clothes used exclusively or practically exclusively for the purposes of his work. Take the allowance for wife and children, including, say, £10 for the other allowances, and let us see what is the lax which
falls at certain stages of income? My light hon. Friend said that you would not have taxed before the War a man with a weekly income of 30s. Doubling this weekly income, following my right hon. Friend's argument, we get 60s. a week as the post-war equivalent of the workman's pre-war 30s. A single man with no dependants and an income of £3 per week pays a tax of 1s. 1d. a week out of his £3. A married man with no children pays 1d. per week. A married man with one child or more than one child, nothing. Take the unmarried man with £3 10s. a week who has no claim for dependants of any kind. He pays 2s. 3d. out of his £3 10s. Is that a monstrous or unjust charge, for a bachelor who has nobody but himself to provide for? If he is married And has a wife to provide for, with no children, he pays 1s. 2d. per week. If he is married and with one child he pays Id. per week out of his £3 10s. Beyond that he pays nothing. A bachelor with £4 10s. a week, and nobody dependent on him, pays at present 4s. 6d. a week out of his £4 10s. A married man without children, with the same, income, pays 3s. 5d. per week. If he has as many as three children the tax falls to 2d. per week, or if he has more than three children, or, in addition to the children, has a dependant relative, it is wiped out altogether. The bachelor with £5 per week pays 5s. 7d. a week. If he is a married man with no children, he pays 4s 7d. If he is a married man with one child, he pays 3s. 6d. If he has three children, he pays 1s. 4d. If he has four children or three children and a dependant relative, his tax sinks to 3d. Beyond that it is nothing.
My right hon. Friend was very persuasive, but I do not think that anybody listening to him could have conceived that that was the magnitude of the grievance which he was describing, and I do not believe that he could have known it himself, or that he would say that that taxation of the unmarried man in the present state of our national finances, and with the burdens which we are casting on wealthy people at the present time, is an unfair contribution to make. I do not want to pre-judge in any way the findings of the Commission now looking into the Income Tax. I would much sooner not have been obliged to argue the Income Tax question pending their Report, because I may be forced to-day to argue against something that they will
recommend in their Report, and which for reasons they give, I may become convinced is the proper thing to do, or which, without thinking them proper, I may, if I am in the same position next year, feel bound to do in deference to their Report, though I do not share their view. Therefore I do not want any argument which I may use now to be thought to pre-judge the consideration of the Report, which the Income Tax Commission will make. But what I submit is that this grievance, when actually tested, whatever it may be, is not of such dimensions as to call for an immediate remedy in advance of that Report, and before we know what that Report has in store.

Sir E. CARSON: I think it a great mistake for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to imagine that this is merely a question which affects what they always call the wage-earning classes. I can assure them that it is a very important question, for many members of the professional classes, bank clerks, all kinds of clerks, clergymen, and young barristers, and that we make a great mistake in this House when we try to draw this rigid distinction between what you call the labouring classes, as if the man, because he has been brought up to be a clergyman or a barrister, has not only equal but far greater difficulties to contend with in this position which, whether willingly or unwillingly, is thrown upon him. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that has been put forward, because I think that what the right hon. Gentleman who spoke before the Chancellor of the Exchequer said is perfectly true, that those who have merely the margin of living find even a very small tax which not only in itself is difficult, but essentially annoying. I think they exaggerate even the importance of it to them, and its difficulty, and I think that that aggravates them beyond what the lax is worth, and if the national finances allowed it and if my right hon. Friend had been able to say that he recognised that this was a matter which ought to be conceded nobody would have rejoiced more than I at the confession. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown out that these are all matters which must be considered.
I desire, if I may, to say to the authorities who consider these questions, that there is a large number of other classes beyond the rate of £250, who want to be considered very seriously, and whose
cases are never put in the House of Commons. I refer to those who are no longer able to work, who, after a life of loyal service, very often to the State or to their employers, whoever they may be, have looked forward to pensions of £300 to £600 a year and now have to face this enormous Income Tax, which they have to pay in addition to the increased cost of living, or, in other words, in addition to the depreciation to the value of the sovereign. The condition of some of these people is lamentable, and for this reason. They have lived at a certain standard, and they have accommodated themselves and brought up their children to a certain standard. I am not now advocating whether there ought to be this difference at all, but it is a fact that they have undertaken obligations, which they feel bound to the very last to try to fulfil, and now, after a long life of service, they are unable to earn—whether you call it a salary or a wage—I do not think it makes much difference—and they find themselves in a position of distraction every hour of the day and night, in a position of grave anxiety as to what is to become of them.
5.0 P.M.
You cannot stop at the consideration of these cases of £250 a year, and in some way or other I believe that the State, in a broad-minded fashion, will have to find some way of relieving the constant anxieties of these people, and trying to restore them to somewhat of the position they held before the War. Take one class—demobilised officers. I have known two or three cases connected with my own business of young clerks who had very little before the War, and who got commissions because they were good men in the Army. I had a servant in my own employment, a footman, who, I am glad to say, got a commission. He was a thoroughly good fellow. He was a volunteer early in the War. All these people give their services to the country, and they are put into these positions, from which they will have, as regards their present status, to be degraded in existing circumstances. How can you go on asking these people to diminish the pittance they have got by asking them to pay this kind of impost? To those who are considering the finances of the future I put in a plea for these people, who are just as worthy as the wage-earner, and whose case has as much right to be put in this House. I care nothing for distinctions between classes, but I believe
that, as long as society exists on its present basis, the people for whom I have been saying a word are suffering far more than any other class of the community.

Mr. J. C. SWAN: A better argument could not be advanced in favour of raising the limit to £250 than has been presented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast. We on these benches may not be in a position to realise the hardship upon those classes who have pensions of £500 a year, but we do realise that a great hardship is imposed to-day upon the working man whose income is £130. The grievance that we have, as far as this tax is concerned, is not the amount that it takes, but the amount that is left for the working man, and we submit that the amount left for the working man today is not sufficient to enable him to obtain the necessaries of life. Wages certainly have been increased during the period of the War, but they have not been increased in proportion to the rise in the cost of living, and we think it is only reasonable that the amount suggested in this Motion, namely, £250 a year, should be the limit upon which the tax on the Income of the wage-earner is charged. We have never experienced a time when the difficulties of life, as far as working people are concerned, are so great as they are to-day. Working men and their families have never been so badly clothed or shod as they are to-day, because their wages will not permit them to get the necessaries of life. We think it is grossly unfair to impose any tax upon their income which encroaches upon their standard of living. Undoubtedly that is being done to-day, and we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to raise the limit to the amount suggested. Moreover, there are those among the working people who are seeking to send their children over sixteen years of age to secondary schools, and there is no allowance made in such a case. That acts as a deterrent of education and prevents working people having their children properly educated. We think this Motion ought to be carried, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to extend his sympathies towards the working people for that purpose.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The hon. Member who initiated this Debate advanced two propositions in favour of raising the Income Tax limit from £130 to £250. His first argument was that the limit of £130 violated a cardinal principle
of taxation in that it tended to lower the physical efficiency of the workers, or, in other words, that an individual drawing, say, £240 a year had insufficient to maintain him in physical health. Last Session this House was informed that the cost of maintaining a soldier in good bodily health, making an average addition for separation allowance for his wife and children, amounted to £120 a year. If, therefore, it costs the State £120, excluding rent, to maintain a soldier and his family—it may be with insufficient separation allowance—I submit that the hon. Member's argument that it is necessary for a man to make at least £250 a year, and that he should not be taxed directly on an income which does not exced that, falls to the ground. His second argument was that it was a business proposition, and he reminded the House that when the Income Tax limit was lowered the then Chancellor of the Txchequer estimated that the Revenue would gain £1,000,000. We now know, from the information given to us this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the actual increase would reach a figure of some £16,000,000 to £20,000,000.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My figures are not comparable with the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time the limit was lowered. He spoke of the difference in yield at that time between an Income Tax beginning at £160 and one beginning at £130. My figures refer to the difference between a tax beginning at £130 and one beginning at £250, so that my £8,000,000 or £16,000,000 is not comparable with the earlier figures.

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that if the limit were raised from £130 to £250, and the present abatements were continued, the loss to the Revenue would amount to some £15,000,000 or £16,000,000. In the present state of the financial situation of the country this is a large sum, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to raise the limit. I think this subject raises a question of the first importance. It involves taxation on some 1,000,000 workers, but incidentally it affects a very large number of Income Tax payers, and if, on the one hand, you raise the limit to £250 and give this advantage to those particular persons, you at the same time create a sense of injustice in the minds of a very large number of other
people who are at present bearing their full share of the burden of taxation. Therefore I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not only to look at this matter in the interests of those, who are at present being taxed on, the limit of £130, but also to consider the very large number of Income Tax payers who are many of them feeling the burden referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast. If the limit were raised to £250, it would be in striking contrast to the policy of Mr. McKenna when he introduced that change in our finances in 1915. I am quite unable to know what his views would be to-day on such a subject, but I may be permitted here to offer him my congratulations on his bold step at that time and also on having put on the Statute Book two important measures which brought in during the War large, sums to the revenue. If this Amendment should be carried, we should atone stroke divorce some 1,000,000 people from direct taxation who are at present paying the sums mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer The result would be that a bachelor, if he neither smoked or drank, drawing £240 a year, would pay an infinitesimal sum into the coffers of the State, and I venture to assert that if this question were put to any body of workmen as to whether they would be prepared to relieve themselves of all direct taxation, in view of the sacrifices made by one and all during the War, they would resent that, and would willingly pay their share of the burden caused by the War.
I readily admit that there are anomalies in our Income Tax laws, and I hope that the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer may remove some of those anomalies. The War having been supported by all classes, and having been, won by sacrifice, the necessary corollary, I am afraid, is heavy taxation in the future. Our Income Tax is really the sheet-anchor of our finances. It is not perhaps so readily realised that the rate of the Income Tax has been raised some 400 per cent. during the War. It showed great elasticity, and provided a bountiful revenue without a single dissentient voice being raised either in this House or outside, and I think we can look back with pride on Britain's finance during the War, especially when we remember that Britain alone among the European belligerent nations was not forced, as most Continental countries were, to discard her pre-war methods. We have raised these large
sums of money because, speaking broadly, our taxation was fair between class and class, and the Government of the day did not hesitate to raise, and raise heavily, direct taxation on large incomes and on those who were well able to bear it. That is the bright side of the sheet. But there is another side. We are to-day raising some £350,000,000 a year by the Income Tax, but I am very much afraid that in the future we shall not raise those large sums of money. The yield of our Income Tax this year, or rather this year and the last two years, has been inflated owing to three causes. There was, first, the inflation of prices, and, secondly, this nation was borrowing from abroad and at the same time we were calling in capital which we had lent to other nations before the War. In addition to that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year has the very good fortune to have at his disposal the average of three good Income Tax years. That makes the yield from the Income Tax this year larger than it would otherwise have been, but with the signature of peace the process which has increased the yield of the Income Tax during the War must be reversed. Instead of inflating prices, the Government must take every step to deflate prices Instead of borrowing from abroad, we must lend to other countries; and instead of calling in capital, as we have done to the extent of some £1,300,000,000 during the War, we must lend other nations our surplus capital. Therefore the three factors which have increased the yield of the Income Tax during the War will disappear, and I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future years will have to face a dwindling of the amount realised under the present rate. Therefore, in view of these factors, this is not the time, in my judgment, to raise the Income Tax limit to £250. I know it is argued by some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches that there are great untapped sources of wealth in this country, and they point out, and may be with a certain amount of reason, that during the War the Government have taken steps to tap these sources of wealth. I submit, on the other hand, that there have been artificial causes at work during the last four years which have increased the yield of Income Tax, and instead of these factors being at work after the War there will be other factors at work in future which will tend to lower the yield of the
Income Tax. In view of this very general view that there are vast sources of wealth in the country not being fairly taxed, may I remind my hon. Friends of the very striking figures recently published by that careful statistician, Professor Powney, who has made a very careful study of the annual income of the nation before the War, and reading in his book the other day I saw that he estimates that the gross average income per family of five persons before the War, were the total income of the nation divided amongst the families of the nation, amounted to only £230 gross, or £170 net. If you take into consideration the income received from abroad, you add another £10 to these figures. Therefore I submit that, taking the best evidence which is available, there are not these vast untapped sources of wealth open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and unless the Government are very careful in husbanding the resources of the nation we may find great difficulty indeed in financing this country in future years. If the Income Tax does not yield sufficient revenue year by year the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be driven, against his will and against his wish, to unsound methods of taxation to which he is opposed to-day. Therefore, I appeal to him to maintain his present position on this Amendment and at the same time to take every available step to reduce our expenditure. If our present expenditure continues, the credit and financial position of this country will receive a blow which may be we shall never recover from, and the financial and industrial supremacy which Britain has gained in byegone days and which has stood us in such good stead during the War may pass from us to America in the days to come. While this expenditure continues, if at the same time we divorce from the ultimate responsibility for this expenditure the million or two million Income Tax payers who are presently paying Income Tax when the Income Tax limit is only £130, we shall remove the one and may be the only check which will curb the spending habit of this Government, yea, and of all Governments. I appeal, therefore, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adjust our commitments in the future to our ability to pay. During that War our effort was dependent on one factor only, on our material resources. I plead that in future our effort should be determined by our ability to pay, and I would that the Government gave the same
energy and the same force to reducing expenditure as they gave in the prosecution of the War. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this House cannot single out one item of taxation and take exception to it. They have to look at the new taxation proposals as a whole, and, excepting his Preference duties, I venture to assert that this Budget is a Radical Budget. It conforms in many ways to the 1909–10 Budget, which created great controversy in those days. I readily agree that wealth must pay the major portion of the cost of this war. The broad back must bear the main burden, but at the same time let us take every available step to secure that our taxation proposals, which are severe to-day, are based on equity and justice as between the classes, and if this Amendment was carried I venture to assert without fear of contradiction that there would be created throughout the country a grave sense of injustice.

Mr. ADAMSON: As to whether this is a Radical Budget or a Conservative Budget I am not going to express an opinion. I will leave that to be adjusted by the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will gladly agree with either.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his speech, stated that the lowering of the Income Tax from £160 to £130 was a war measure, that the War in his view was not over, and that unless there was something grossly unfair in the tax it must continue. He then went on to ask from the benches opposite on what principle they proposed that working people should pay their share of the taxation of the country. I think we have several times attempted to make our position clear so far as that question is concerned. We think that the principle of taxation that ought to be applied should be a graduated system of direct taxation over a reasonable Income Tax standard, and that any indirect taxation under that ought only to apply to luxuries. Several times in the course of these Debates we have pointed out that in our opinion the reasonable figure for the fixing of the Income Tax standard was £250, and in reply to the right hon. Gentleman who represents one of the Belfast Divisions (Sir E. Carson) may I remark that we do not ask
that this Income Tax standard of £250 should apply only to those who are known as the labouring classes. We know that the classes which he mentioned—bank clerks, and many engaged in the legal and other professions, who are forced to exist on small incomes—have quite as great difficulties as those who are commonly known as the labouring classes. We take up the position that this Income Tax standard should apply to all, and should be fixed at £250 per year. If we were making an attempt to get back to pre-war conditions, we would have required to move for a much higher Income Tax standard than £250, because whether the figures quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by the hon. Member who spoke first on this question, or by myself in the course of the discussion last evening, are correct, I think there is common agreement that the cost of living is, roughly, double what it was in August, 1914, and if we were attempting to get back to the pre-war standard we would have required to propose that the Income Tax standard should be fixed at £50. It would have taken that to put the poorer classes of this country in the same position as they were in 1914. In that connection, may I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that while he was speaking he made no attempt to meet the point that was made by my right hon. Friend who spoke a little time ago, that no taxation ought to be applied until you have reached a reasonable subsistence level? He made no attempt to answer that, which, to my mind, and to the mind of many others, is a vital point. There ought to be no taxation of any kind applied until your people have at least assured to them a reasonable subsistence level.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that if the working man's £2, in consequence of the increased cost of living, was only valued at £1 to-day, the rich man's £10,000 is only worth £5,000 to-day. To my mind that is a fallacious argument, if he means to use that argument as a reason why this Income Tax standard of £250 should not be applied. In the case of those for whom we are making this appeal, their wages, as has been pointed out, are required to provide the bare necessities of life, and anything that eats into that is eating into the source from which they are to provide the necessities for keeping them in a position to render their share in producing the national essentials; whereas in the case
of the rich man who is earning £10,000 a year, the inroad that may have been made on his earnings does not curtail the necessaries of life. All that occurs there is that it puts him into the position of being able to save less money than when his income of £10,000 a year was worth that sum, as against the£5,000 purchasing power to-day. But it does not touch his ability to provide the necessities of life for himself and those dependent upon him; whereas, in the case of those with small incomes, any little taxation that may be applied, no matter how small it is, is entrenching on his ability to provide the necessities of life, and keep himself and those dependent upon him in a fit condition to perform their particular services to the State. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show from a fairly elaborate set of figures really how little this Income Tax cost those whose incomes are under £250 a year. I think in producing that elaborate statement he was really strengthening our claim to have the Income Tax standard fixed at £250, because if the amount is really so small, it will impose very little loss on the revenue of the country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Member is making a mistake in assuming that if the burden on the individual is small, therefore the return to the revenue is small. The returns to the revenue are made up of small burdens on a very large number of individuals, and therefore the gain to the individual is no measure of the loss to the revenue.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was trying to gather the result of the arguments of the Chancellor, and I am putting it to him just as it appealed to me, and I was pointing out that I thought he was rather making a case because of the small amount that was taken by the Income Tax from those whose incomes were under £250, and that his task would not be a very difficult one if he applied his mind seriously to the question of finding some source of revenue which would bear less heavily on those. Whatever were Mr. McKenna's ideas, or whatever may be the ideas of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), regarding the question of the lowering of the income tax from £160 to £130 three years ago, I can assure the House and the Chancellor that this is a matter that has been the cause of a very large amount of dissatisfaction so far as the working classes in this country are concerned.
You can scarcely see a trade union meeting of any description, or a meeting of the labour movement of any kind without the question of the Income Tax standard being discussed, and the demand being put forward for it to be raised from its present level to a much higher level. That is not to be wondered at. To those of us who have the practical experience of finding the wherewithal to maintain a household on a very small amount, it is not to be wondered at that there is a very urgent demand put forward again and again for the raising of the Income Tax standard. We have a far keener appreciation of the matter than those whose incomes during the greater part of their lives has been measured by £1,000, or £5,000, or £10,000, or many more thousands of pounds. We know the difficulty. That is the reason why we are so urgent for this reform, and I hope that, before we part with the Budget in its various forms, this is one of the things to which the Chancellor will give his serious attention. I can assure him that, although the discussion ends to-night, and possibly without any Division being taken on the particular proposition before us—because I understand that the Motion that was down has been ruled out of order, and we are simply discussing a general proposition—but whatever happens regarding it, he need not come to the conclusion that this question is being put off at least for another year. He will find that as the days go by the working classes of the country will become more insistent—[An HON. MEMBER: "They will not pay it!"]—on having the Income Tax fixed at a reasonable standard. They will become more insistent in the demand that there shall be no taxation until a reasonable subsistence level has been reached, and in making that claim they are making a reasonable and just claim, and one that ought to command the serious attention both of the Chancellor, of the Exchequer and of the House. The Chancellor asked us what share we think the working classes ought to pay to the upkeep of the country that they are living in. I have endeavoured to point out the basis on which I think they ought to pay. Does he think that the working classes, whose wages have not reached a reasonable Income Tax level, are not giving sufficient to the country when they are putting every ounce of energy of which they are possessed into the production of the things that are essential for keeping this country going, without having their incomes encroached
on by taxation, until at least their income has reached a sum that will guarantee to them a real and reasonable subsistence level?

Sir J. D. REES: The chief difference between the two right hon. Gentlemen on either side of the Mace is, I think, that the one has to carry on and the other has not at present; but I think my right hon. Friend opposite, in his interesting speech, would have been more effective if he had indicated how his Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he sits here, is going to meet the cost of carrying on the business of the country. My right hon. Friend very fairly and reasonably said he had personal experience of how a family had to carry on, and how it must have an irreducible minimum before it could provide itself with the absolute necessities of existence. Everybody must sympathise with that view; but, after all, the State is an aggregate of families, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to provide for the aggregate of families called the State, and how he is to do it if no taxation is to be levied on anyone who comes below a certain abitrary limit, I confess I do not see. The limit must vary with circumstances, and may, of course, be justly placed at one time at £250 and at another at £130.
It is quite true that if those for whom he more particularly speaks increase production to such an extent that they increase the value of the currency of the country represented by intrinsically worthless pieces of paper, then I think it would be probably perfectly reasonable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that which my right hon. Friend asked him to do. At present I should imagine there is a very considerable difficulty, when these currency notes are mere drafts upon the production of the country, and when it is not certain that is going to be increased to the extent we hope and anticipate. There is considerable difficulty in fixing taxation upon the basis of present figures, which are notoriously inflated, and do not represent a permanent basis. He said himself that the country has not nearly got back to pre-war conditions. How difficult, then, would it be to establish a permanent principle such as he advocates under existing circumstances.
I believe it would be everybody's desire that the Income Tax should be fixed at the limit for which he pleads, but, on the other hand, I think he might very fairly
consider that there is great difficulty at the present moment in doing what he asks, and he might indicate how the money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asked to give up should be recovered, Is it his intention that what is to be relinquished upon what he calls small incomes is to be put upon the Income Tax of what he calls "the rich," and, if so, to what extent is that to be carried? Already the larger incomes, he will readily admit, are taxed in the most extremely severe way I ask him, would he add to that Income Tax levy on larger incomes all that he now asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relinquish, and, if so, at what point would he stop? He has got very near half of these large incomes now. Is he really advocating the use of the Income Tax in order to bring all incomes to something like uniformity. If so, I could not congratulate him on the statesmanlike character of his attitude. If he really had that at the back of his speech, it would be somewhat convenient to have it plainly stated.
I confess that after what the hon. Member has said I find it exceedingly difficult to put in my little plea for a class of taxpayer who, as I understand it, some hon. Members are prepared to tax out of existence. I was going to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not complain, for I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted very wisely in not interfering at all with the Income Tax under existing circumstances, in view of the appointment of the Commission, and until they have made their Report—but there are two classes, I thought, for which possibly he might have done something. There is the terribly hard case of the taxpayer whose income comes from Australia, and who therefore pays the State Tax and the Federal Tax in Australia and the Income Tax and Super-tax in the United Kingdom, and so keeps exactly 4s. out of his 20s. I see the difficulty of my right hon. Friend. It is hard to deal with this matter now, but the case is a pressing and a very hard case, and I should have been glad if something could have been done without waiting for the Report of the Commission, and it is on behalf of these payers of double, or one might say quadruple Income Tax payers that I speak.
There is another very hard case. I am not shying at mentioning it—although it seems to require considerable courage in view of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that his policy would be to
pile on absolutely what is wanted in national income on what he calls the richer classes. The point is this: I am aware, of course, that the Super-tax is additional to the Income Tax. Therefore one sees the argument that it should be collected upon the gross amount. Nevertheless I would urge that there does seem to be something exceedingly unfair, some superfluity of naughtiness, in that it is a man's actual receipts upon which this tax is paid, and it should not be paid, therefore, on income which he has never received, and which has been paid away to the extent, perhaps, of half his income! It does not seem to me to be a fair thing. If a taxpayer acts like an honest man, and in order to pay the uttermost farthing for carrying on the War, for social reform, or for other causes, he puts his accounts into someone else's hands and says, "I do not want myself to make these calculations, I might be inclined to favour myself a little—human nature being what it is even amongst the wealthier folk." That account is produced as his total receipts, and then before he pays the Super-tax upon it there is the Income Tax, which may amount to half, or very nearly, of what he receives to be added to it. It really is an exceedingly hard case. I am sure hon. Members opposite would admit that even people who get these larger incomes are God's creatures, and should be entitled to justice in regard to the payment of Income Tax. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he could only arrange that Super-tax should be paid upon actual receipts, and not upon such receipts, plus the Income Tax, it would be well. It did not matter very much when the Income Tax was 1s. or 2s. in the £, but when it amounts to 30 per cent. or 40 per cent., or even 50 per cent., of a man's receipts, it becomes a cruel injustice. I am quite well aware of what the hon. Gentleman may reply. But I put it to him, in spite of that, that it would be a fair thing of him to consider the exceeding hardship of the case which I venture to represent to him on behalf of such an unpopular class as those who are commonly described as the rich—if, indeed, there are any rich people left at all except those who have made their money during the War.

Mr. SPENCER: I want to support the arguments put forward on this side of the House favouring an increase of the relief to be derived from the Income Tax. In the
first place, it can be stated by hon. Members on this side of the House that the taxation levied upon small incomes trenches very much upon the prime necessaries of life. No one, I think, can deny or contradict that statement. It has been laid down as a very sound canon of taxation that people should be taxed proportionately to their income and proportionately to the security they derive from the State. If that is so, it cannot, I think, be argued that the taxing of incomes of persons with £129 19s. a year, or £130 a year, £10 of which is taxable, is a fair method of taxing those who have to earn their living. May I take the case which has been received more than once with enormous plaudits by hon. Members on the other side? I mean persons with small fixed incomes. There is, for instance, the person whose pre-war income was £200 per year. The taxation upon that was about 30s., leaving a balance of £198 10s. The present-time taxation upon £200 is £9. This, however, is not the worst feature of the case. Owing to the depreciation of money, and the lower purchasing power of money, that income to-day, compared with pre-war values, is not worth much more than £95. So far, therefore, as people with small fixed incomes are concerned, the taxation is a very serious thing indeed. It undoubtedly does trench on the subsistence level, and affects the income needed for sustaining such people at a proper standard of physical efficiency.
This applies to people not only with small incomes, who may be said to be independent people in the sense that they do not work for their living, but it applies with equal force to those who have to toil for their subsistence. You have brought within the purview of taxation in many cases to-day the lowest labouring class in industrial life—people who never thought at one time that they would be brought within the purview of taxation. I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman that no Chancellor would ever have dreamed of putting a tax on incomes of about £60 before the War, and £60 is the value of the amount that is free from taxation at the present time—that is to say, if you take the £120 at its present time value, which is about £60. I do not know whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer before, he would ever have thought of imposing taxation upon incomes of about £60. That, however, actually exists. As I say, it trenches upon the physical necessaries of
life, and I along with my hon. Friends on this side appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give some relief in that direction.
I want also to point out to him what I think is a very serious matter and one worthy of the consideration of every man in this House. That is a tax which in a measure hinders proper and efficient training of the child of the working man. I say that not only on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, but for all Members. To-day there was a question in the House, the purport of which was to discover as to whether the Treasury was prepared to allow a higher allowance, or an increased age, in regard to the children or young people attending school. You may, on the one hand, have a man who has very little pride or interest in his children, and who, at fourteen years of age, sends them to work. He has certain relief in the way of taxation for those children until they are sixteen. Another man, whose income may be equally slender, has great pride in his children, and does all he possibly can to educate them. Consequently he keeps them at school, probably, till they are eighteen or nineteen. As soon as they turn sixteen he is no further relieved so far as the £25 yearly allowance is concerned. That, I think, is a question worthy of the very serious attention of the Chancellor. Every person who endeavours to educate his children on a limited income ought certainly to be encouraged to do so.
My third point is concerning the very serious irritation among the working classes at the present time. The House may dismiss the question as being of little importance or value, but there is no trade union meeting held at the present time in this country but resolution after resolution is passed, not only demanding that the amount shall be raised, but resolutions have been passed asking members not to pay. The Chancellor and the House may dismiss these as being of very little consequence. I want, however, to warn this House that the irritation is growing, and that the determination on the part of the workers not to be affected in a manner in which they are affected is growing to such volume that it will culminate undoubtedly in the unions joining in one great effective demand in connection with this question. It is far better to give attention to the thing before that volume of opinion grows to that extent than to wait
until it does grow, and you get protests from men refusing any longer to work, or arriving at the conclusion that none of them will pay it, let the consequence be what they may. Then you will have to send the tax collectors in or put the bailiffs in. That can be avoided if attention is given at the present time to the plea which is being put forward, an honest plea, by Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this question yesterday said we ought not to fix our attention merely upon one particular aspect of taxation. He said it was not fair to fix attention upon the aspect of indirect taxation only. He said we ought to take into account the whole of the taxes levied. I cannot see any real effective argument there.
What use or service will it be to poor people to be reminded of the fact that the rich people are levied up to £10,000, or pay largely the indirect taxation of the country, if it leaves an impost upon the poor man which deprives him of even the little subsistence that he has already? He can derive no benefit or pleasure from that aspect of the case. So far as we are concerned in respect of this burden. I want to say here and now that I sincerely believe that every working man has a right to pay this tax when you have left him sufficient to provide himself and his family with their ordinary requirements of life. I do not plead for working men to be absolutely free from any burden whatever, but what we are pleading for is such a measure of freedom as will secure for him a proper subsistence with the money he earns. You must also take, into consideration the fact that working people pay by indirect methods.
6.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman challenged the idea of the excess profits being indirect taxation, but during the proceedings of the Coal Commission it was found out that 2s. 6d.per ton had been levied on the community by the late Government. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that was not all indirect taxation, and whether the community that purchased and burned the coal were not actually paying that indirect tax? In considering indirect taxation the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider these facts. Here and now, irrespective of what this side of the House may do, I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that he has taken 40 per cent. off the Excess Profits Tax, but when
he did so I think he ought to have had the courage to impose it upon the greater incomes by methods of direct taxation.

Mr. PERRING: The hon. Member in his opening remark said that taxation should be levied upon every man's income. A method of taxation which is far more equitable and just is that it should be levied according to a man's capacity to pay. We have heard it stated this afternoon that a man with a family and earning £5 a week pays a mere trifle, while a man who is a bachelor is called upon to pay a much larger sum. I see no reason why a single man who is earning this amount of money and able to pay should not do so, and I think that is just and fair. At the present time, whenever a man reaches the Income Tax scale, he generally asks for a rise in salary so as to pass the taxation on to somebody else, and as a result of this policy there is a continual demand for higher wages, with the object of passing the tax on to somebody else, with the result that it increases the cost of production. The cost of these higher wages is passed on again to the consumer, and the working man cannot see that all these agitations and steps he takes are bringing the tax indirectly back upon his own shoulders.
We have heard of resolutions being passed not to pay the tax or as to the undesirability of paying it, and there has been a sort of half-throat held out that the time will come when they will refuse to pay it. [An Hon. Member: "So it will!"] I think that is a very dishonest suggestion, because the one desire in the case seems to be to pass the tax on to somebody else. The tendency of the time is to get a higher wage and not to pay anything in taxation. It has been urged that a man should not pay this tax until he has reached above the standard of bare necessities. To suggest that a single man should not pay taxation until he has reached £5 a week is an absurd suggestion. As an employer of labour, I know what a man can fairly well live upon and bring up a family, and the fact that these men have done this for ten, fifteen, and twenty years is the best evidence that they are satisfied and are living happily and comfortably, and are strong enough to discharge their duties.
The one difficulty is understanding what are food values. If the working classes were to realise and appreciate the value of food—I mean the economic value—we
should get better results. It is the enormous waste in the expenditure of their incomes on the most unprofitable forms of food that leads to undesirable results, agitation, and dissatisfaction of which we hear so much. The hon. Member who opened this discussion, speaking last week on the Budget proposals, referred to the fact that there was a tendency for food values to improve, and the cost of living to improve thereby; but, although that is so, we know as a fact that the tendency of the time is to still further ask for an increase of wages, notwithstanding the tendency of food values to fall. I have evidence myself daily of that tendency to demand higher wages.
The hon. Member who opened the discussion said that while there was a tendency for food values to fall, he suggested that we should not get any more Income Tax in the future because of the advantage which would accrue, and he further suggested that all future increase of profits were mortgaged to the workers for increased wages and shorter hours. That indicates that in future, although food values still decline, the workers are determined to secure all the benefits that accrue from the reduction in the price of raw materials or food, which they intend to place on their wages, with the result that, although raw materials are falling to-day, you cannot purchase or sell anything cheaper because of the increased demand for higher wages. Is it honest, if wages are going to increase as the raw materials decrease, or is it fair to suggest that in the future the workers should not pay Income Tax until they earn more than £250 a year? In estimating the capacity to pay why should you not take the total income that comes into a home. I think it will be admitted that in the last two or three years, and even to-day, except for the abnormal unemployment arising out of demobilisation, the total income coming into the house of a working man through his wife and children is, in the aggregate, much higher to-day and therefore the conditions in the home are thereby relatively better, and when comparisons are made between the conditions to-day and pre-war conditions the fact should always be taken into account that the wages of boys and girls and young people are so much higher than the parents used to have to contribute towards their keep in pre-war times, and the earnings of the children now cover the cost of living and their clothes.
In addition to this, the married man receives an allowance for his children on the Income Tax and there is also the subsidy on bread, and if this policy is going to continue of demanding higher wages, if this is going to be the set policy of the workers then they must realise this very important fact that if they are going to pursue that policy naturally they must increase the cost of production, and in that case how are you going to compete with your foreign competitors either in the home market or in foreign markets. Whatever may be said about international labour and the adjustment of these matters internationally, I do not think you are going to adjust them so nicely or so well that you will not have to compete with foreign countries. Therefore I submit if that is the policy which the workers are going to pursue, which will increase the cost of production, then the natural effect will be in the end that there will be no employment at all, and then, of course, you will have no Income Tax to pay.

Mr. NEAL: I did not intend to address the House when I came here to-day, but several reasons now impel me to do so. In the first place, it will be a lamentable thing if ever it becomes the belief of the great mass of the population of this country that the only persons in this House who are prepared to give them practical sympathy and attend to their reasonable complaints are the Gentlemen who sit on the benches across the Gangway. I claim to sit in this House as a representative of Labour as much as any of those who adopt that title, but, having said that, I think I should be false, as the representative of a large industrial constitutncy, if I did not support and reinforce the Amendment which would have been moved by my hon. Friend if there had not, unfortunately, been a ruling given by Mr. Speaker which prevented this matter being put to the vote. No one in this House has envied the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last few weeks. Everybody here has admired him during the last few days, but the task which he has had to perform seems to me to be elementary and simple under the advice which he gets, compared with the task which the women in the working homes of this country have been trying to perform with the weekly budget with which they have been face to face. They
have no means of imposing super-taxation or even ordinary taxation. They have had to struggle to make their husbands contented, to keep their children well fed and decently clad, and they are the persons in this land who do more to create contentment and to prevent unrest than any other class.
I wonder if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever tried to experiment with the assistance of any of his lady friends in formulating the budget of a working-class home. Years ago it was not an uncommon thing for me to say to my wife, "Sit down, will you, dear, and tell me if you had 30s. per week regularly, and no bad weeks"—and the bad weeks mean such a lot in the poor man's home—"how you would spend it? How much would go to the butcher, how much to the grocer, how much you would spend on this, that, and the other?" We nearly always came to the conclusion that somebody would have to go without clothes, because there was nothing left. This country is not so poor after the War, and it is not living as if it were so poor, that we cannot afford to meet the request—I do not like the word demand—by the workers that they may have consideration and that they may not be taxed so as to deplete their small store. Those of us who are connected with local authorities know that the School Medical Department's work reveals that the health of the children is according to the means of the parents, and, if ever there were a time when it was imperative that the health of the children should be maintained, it is the present time. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Perring) spoke from the employers' point of view. It is a very narrow view. It is not the interest of the employer to oppose the reasonable request of the workmen. It is not the interest of the employer to reduce the standard of efficiency of the workman. It is not the interest of anybody to say that for £8,000,000 we cannot make some concession to the working classes. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman gave £3,000,000 to the Colonies. I do not know whether he was right or whether he was wrong, and I do not care for this purpose, but £3,000,000 is approximately half the Income Tax which would be derived from these people. The other day he gave away, and I think rightly, half the Excess Profit Duty. How many times would that cover this concession for which a request is made?
My hon. Friend who spoke last said that we could not afford it. We cannot afford to foster and create unrest. I would be one of the last men in this House to yield to a threat from the trade unions or anyone else—the King's Government must be supreme—but let our statesmen be wise enough to read the signs of the times before we get to threats. They are eager enough to do it when face to face with the situation. What have we got here? Eight millions, or one, day's cost of the War. When I use it I know that it is a bad argument, because you may go on multiplying it until you never get economies and always get extravagance. I know that the true way to state the argument is to ask: Is the concession worth one day's cost of the War? I submit that this concession is well worth it. The proposition put forward as to money being only about half its value in pre-war times remains sound, and I do not believe that the argument regarding direct and indirect taxation has yet been forced to its legitimate conclusion. Indirect taxation is borne in much greater proportion by the working classes than by those who have larger incomes. What does it matter to those who have the privilege of sitting in this House whether our tea costs us a few pence more or less? What does it matter whether our home budget for food goes up a £1 or £2, or even £5 per week? It matters practically nothing. But to the working-classes, the greater percentage of whose income has to go into these articles, many of which are taxed, it means everything. They are bearing by indirct taxation a much greater share of the cost of the management of this country than those who are better off. As a Member who has come into this House with the firmest determination to support His Majesty's Government in their difficult tasks, as long and as much as I can, I do ask, may I plead with the Treasury Bench to Have regard to the reasonable requests of the poor, and not to make taxation a hardship, because, believe me, there is no need for it to become so.

Mr. NEIL M'LEAN: I appreciate the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway (Mr. Neal) in defence of the working-classes, but I would like to point out that we are not asking in the aggregate for such a very large gift to the workers of this country. It is true that the imposition of the Income Tax upon the incomes of the working-classes is one of the causes of industrial
unrest, for, as has been pointed out, the tax is now levied upon an income which is only equal to one of £65 per year of pre-war value. We ask that the tax should not be levied on incomes of less than £250. It does not mean a gift of so very many millions, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced his Budget, was in a very generous mood, I imagine that he will be quite willing to grant to the workers of this country the donation for which we ask in this revision of the Income Tax. He proposes to reduce the Excess Profits Tax to 40 per cent. in order to give employers an opportunity of enlarging and extending their businesses, and that reduction from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. means a direct gift to the employing classes of £145,000,000 this year. If we can be generous enough when we have just emerged from the War to make a gift to the employing classes of such a large sum then the few millions for which we ask can be quite easily given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not say that they have actually said it, but some Members have suggested that the workers are taxed all that they require to be taxed through their incomes.
I suggest that the working classes paid prior to the War, and pay to-day, very much more in proportion to their incomes towards maintaining the Government of this country than ony other section of the community. Take for example, the tax upon tea. I take it that the controlled price of tea will very soon be removed, and that the price will again be according to its quality. If you compare the tax on tea with the prices of the various qualities, you will readily see that proportionately a much larger tax falls upon the workers, than upon the wealthier sections of the community. There is about 1 lb. of tea consumed per week in the average working-class home, and, assuming that the price remains at 2s. 4d. in the £, the worker gets tea to the value of 1s. 6d., and pays 10d. tax. If the price decreases, then the tax becomes more pronounced. When you come to the higher priced tea or the better qualities of tea consumed by the wealthier classes, the difference is very remarkable. If the price of the tea is 5s., then you get tea to the value of 4s. 2d., and still only pay 10d. tax.

Sir W. SEAGER: Very little tea is sold at 5s. per lb.

Mr. M'LEAN: Whether there is very little or a great quantity, the facts remain
as I have stated them. This indirect taxation is a heavier burden upon the workers than upon any other sections of the community. If you take tobacco, you find again a flat rate of taxation. The tobacco tax amounts to something like 8s. per lb., and works out at about something like 6d. per ounce. When the working man gets an ounce of tobacco for 9d. or 9½d., he pays 6d. in taxation and receives tobacco to the value of 3d. or 3½d. The tax remains the same for the higher qualities of tobacco, and, though the wealthier classes pay the same tax, they obtain a better quality of tobacco. It is the same with regard to everything upon which you impose indirect taxation. The family budget is the bane of the working woman's life. She is always trying week after week and fortnight after fortnight to make ends meet on the small income that she gets, and a very large part of it goes in taxation to meet the expenses of the country. It is not accurate to say, as the hon. Gentleman opposite tried to make out, that the working-classes are always trying to shift their burden of taxation and place it upon other people. If it were accurate, there would be no grievance or complaint, but, whether the tax rises or falls, you always find that the wages of the working-classes are kept at a mere subsistence level.
The hon. Gentleman said that the working classes were always trying to shove taxation on to some other people. He instanced his own case as an employer of labour, but I should think it is rather a peculiar one and I should hope a very isolated case. I have found it the other way about, and that the wealthier classes, and particularly those, in trade, put the taxation on to the consumer. If a tax is put on tobacco, or spirits, or tea, the price is immediately increased to the consumer and even for the stock which the traders had on their shelves and which had not paid the increased duty. Consequently, when the hon. Gentleman talks of the workers trying to push taxation upon other sections of the community he is merely telling us that they are doing what they have been taught to do by others. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will increase the limit to the sum mentioned. There is no justification for keeping this tax upon the workers and reducing the tax upon excess profits. If you want to stop profiteering you will not do it by reducing the tax upon excess profits, but if you increase the tax to 100
per cent. and left them nothing that would soon bring prices back to the pre-war level.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the Resolutions from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 7th day of this instant, May, and then agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

FINANCE BILL,—"to grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monlay next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time.
I am sure that this measure is one which will evoke the whole-hearted sympathy of the House, and that it will be rapidly passed into law. It is a Bill to enable arrangements to be made to facilitate the employment of disabled men who have served in any of His Majesty's Forces during the War and the facilitation of their employment is brought about under the Bill by indemnifying employers against any increase in their expenditure arising in their liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Bill is based on the unanimous Report of a Committee set up by the Home Secretary in March last, and which made a record Report in April of the same year. On that Committee were two hon. Members of the House, namely, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Shaw), and the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett), both of whom have taken a keen interest in this question. The Committee was unanimous in laying down the principle, first, that the Bill would facilitate the employment of these disabled and gallant men and secondly, that the only way to
facilitate that employment and to indemnify the employer was for the State to assume the necessary burden. The Committee said that
on a general review of the whole position we have come to the conclusion that the individual employer should be relieved of any additional compensation which the appointment of disabled sailors and soldiers may entail so as to prevent the apprehension of such liability prejudicing the employment of such men. We are confident there will be a very strong feeling that all obstacles in the way of the return of these men to employment should as far as practicable be removed. It would not be fair, in our opinion, to call on the individual employers to bear the cost of any additional liability which arises out of injuries incurred in the service of the State. We may mention that both in France and Italy, where a similar problem has arisen, the State has found it necessary to take action.
There were three courses open—first, the indemnity might be borne by the man himself, that is from his wages there might be deducted some extra premium that would be payable by him to ensure him under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or it might be borne by the trade as a whole. But the members of a trade are not all insured on one system, and some insure with companies and others insure themselves. The Committee adopted the third alternative, namely, that the burden such as it is should be borne by the State. On the question of expense the Committee say:
For the reasons which we have set out earlier in the Report we do not regard the increases in the compensation liability in these cases as likely to be at all serious, and consequently we do not expect the charge to the State will be considerable.
Whatever the charge may be it will be a declining charge because these disabled men will not be for all time a charge on the State under this or any other Bill. I think with those few remarks I can ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill. I am sure the Members will feel that these men have a prior claim upon the sympathy and gratitude of the House, and that the measure of their sacrifice is the measure of our plain and simple duty, and that the least we can do for these disabled men is to make it as far as possible certain that they will return to their old or some other employment feeling that they are not disabled by the disablement they have received.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) EXTENSION BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Expenses that may be incurred by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session, to make further provision for the acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings, reclamation, and drainage, to amend the enactments relating to small holdings and allotments, and otherwise to facilitate land settlement; and to authorise the issue to the Public Works Loans Commissioners out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding £20,000,000 for the purposes of such Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any sums payable in respect of arrangements made under any Act of the present Session to enable arrangements to be made as to employers' liability to pay compensation in respect of men disabled by service in His Majesty's Forces during the present War, with a view to facilitating their employment.—(King's Recommendation signified);—To-morrow.—[Colonel,Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS.

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government and for other purposes in relation thereto—(King's Recommendation signified)—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now Adjourn.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HOGGE: There was a question asked this afternoon about business, and we were asked if we would kindly postpone it until the Adjournment. The House at the moment is not in possession of any information with regard to business at all for next week. To-morrow is a private Member's day, and it is difficult under those circumstances to know exactly what Members will be asked to do next week. Presumably the absence of the Leader of he House and the fact that he is on his way from France to London explains why we were not able to get the business at 4 o'clock this afternoon. It may be, of course, that time will be required to provide for the discussion of the Peace terms if it is possible or necessary some day next week. It is also necessary that we should know as soon as possible which Supply is to be put down. On that point we have been asked to suggest some Supply for next week, and I take it that will be settled later on with the Patronage Secretary. I do not know whether he is at the moment in possession of the business or can make any suggestion at any rate for Monday.

Lord E. TALBOT: (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Perhaps my hon. Friend will put his question as to business to the Leader of the House to-morrow at the opening of the Sitting.

Orders of the Day — DEMOBILISATION (NORTH RUSSIA).

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: I have given notice that I wish to address the House on the question of soldiers who are being retained in North Russia and who enlisted in the early part of the War. I am not going to deal with any question of general policy in Russia, because it would be impossible to do that in the short time allowed to me and the subject is too large. But I wish to draw attention particularly to cases of undeniable hardship which are occurring through the action of the military authorities in refusing demobilisation to these men. I will quote two cases of fellow-Yorkshiremen who come from my Constituency. The first is the case of a man who enlisted voluntarily in 1914, who has seen much service, and who is now in North Russia. He has applied for demobilisation, to which I understand he is entitled by Army Orders. His relations have applied for him, his employers have applied for him, and I have taken up his case with the War Office. Before I go
further, I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. Gentleman who presides at the War Office and assists Members in dealing with these cases of demobilisation. Unfortunately, I have had to take a great many cases to him during the short time I have been in this House, but on all occasions he has received me with great courtesy, He has put all the information at my disposal, and has done his best to deal with the particular cases raised. There is a question of policy here upon which His Majesty's Ministers should at once pronounce for the ease of mind of many people in this country whose relations are in North Russia, who have been promised demobilisation and have been refused it. I return to the first case. The first excuse given for not demobilisiing this 1914 recruit was that the transport facilities did not allow of his being demobilised. Men from his unit are now here on leave. They have assured his relations and have assured me—I have seen two of them—that this man can perfectly well be demobilised.
The second case is the case of a man who joined the Territorials in January, 1914. He was mobilised on the outbreak of War; he volunteered for service overseas immediately; he was sent to France, where he served fifteen months; he was invalided home from France in 1917 a sick man. After being in hospital and then in various depots, he was sent to North Russia. He was not asked if he would go. He was not asked to volunteer; he obeyed orders as a soldier. He was sent to North Russia on the day after the Armistice. In January of this year he had completed his five years' Territorial engagement. He was, therefore, entitled to a month's leave. He was granted a month's leave, and is now in England. He was not asked if he would undertake not to make any application for demobilisation. He was given leave, and he has now applied for demobilisation. He is in this country. He has been refused it, and is ordered to return to North Russia next Monday. We are informed that sufficient volunteers are being obtained for service with the North Russia Expeditionary Force. That, I am quite sure, is the case. If English soldiers are in danger through the policy or lack of policy or blunders of Ministers or not, there will always be more volunteers than you need to extract them from that position. Why cannot a volunteer be sent back in place of this man?
I do not wish to touch on the policy behind this unjust retention of men, but
I should like to say that I was the first officer in the Admiralty in 1917 to draw the attention of the Staff to the existence of the Gulf of Kola and to point out the danger to our Mercantile Marine should the Germans obtain the possession of the Murmansk coast, Archangel, and the coastal ports through a breakdown of the system of government in Russia. I was the first to urge an expedition to that coast to enable bases to be formed there. At the same time I drew the attention of the Staff to the case of Genoa in North Italy, which might also serve as asubmarine base in the Mediterranean, outflanking our Adriatic barrage in the case of the regrettable event of the Italian Front giving way completely in North Italy. I drew the attention of the Staff to the danger in North Russia, and we sent troops there, ostensibly with the intention of occupying the coastal ports. Who dreamed that they would push inland for some cause which has never been explained to us? The relations of one of the two men who are my Constituents and fellow-Yorkshiremen in the cases which I have quoted, have been informed by the War Office that he cannot be demobilised because we are at war there. At the same time we are assured by the Secretary of State for War that only volunteers will be sent to North Russia. I contend not only that volunteers should be sent, but that only volunteers should be kept in North Russia. That is doubly the case with regard to the men who enlisted in 1914. He was one of the first men to rush to arms to save democracy, as we were told. This is a matter which touches a great many people in this country.

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): With no object of interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, but merely to enable the reply to be more complete, may I ask which of the two cases he referred to at Question Time?

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: I referred to the case of the man who is under orders to return and who is on leave. At the same time I am exercising what I believe is my right in drawing attention to the other case. I will be brief and allow time for a full reply.

Captain GUEST: The hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstands me. My object in interrupting was to secure a more satisfactory reply. Will he let me know which was the case he referred to at Question Time?

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: The man who joined the Territorials in 1914. He is on leave in this country and is under orders to return to Russia against his will. Many people are concerned deeply in this matter. I submit to His Majesty's Ministers that they should at once give an assurance that at the earliest possible moment these men in North Russia, who enlisted in 1914 and 1915, shall be released and allowed to come home. Further, that the men already on leave in this country, who are entitled to demobilisation by Army Orders, but who are under orders to return to North Russia should be demobilised as well, that the pledge given that only volunteers would be sent to fight in Russia should be kept in the spirit as well as in the letter, and that only volunteers should be retained in North Russia. It may be a small matter, perhaps, to certain Ministers because this affects only a small number of men, but there have been enough hearts broken already in our fight for freedom without more anxiety, more anguish, more discontent, and more feelings almost of disloyalty to our country being raised by this unjust treatment of men who volunteered originally to fight autocracy in Germany and not to engage in expeditions against our late Ally Russia, the object of which has never been clearly and honestly explained.

Captain GUEST: I really have no right to speak on behalf of the War Office unless invited or instructed to do so, but I was present when this question came up in the House, and I heard the Secretary of State for War reply to it. I regret that I was not here soon enough to hear the details given as regards case No. 1, and therefore I am not in a position to give an exact reply.

Mr. HOGGE: Are you speaking for the War Office now?

Captain GUEST: I am trying to perform a useful duty by stating to my hon. and gallant Friend that in regard to the two cases I will take the greatest care to see they are gone into without delay.

Lieutenant-Commander KENWORTHY: May I give you the case in twenty words? It is the case of a 1914 man being retained in Russia in spite of his desire for demobilisation.

Captain GUEST: That being so, it enables one's short reply to be made on
general and not particular grounds. The gravamen of the charge is that men are retained in Russia against their will, having in every other respect rendered themselves liable to demobilisation but for the fact that they are in that far-off land. On the second case, the Secretary of State's reply was very clear. It was to the effect that if a man came home on leave naturally it was on the understanding that on the expiration of that leave he would return to Russia and continue his services. That is the usual understanding in the Army to which I had the honour to belong. When a man comes home on leave, it is clearly understood that he is in honour bound on the expiration of his leave to return to duty. I am not at all oblivious of the hardship involved by this Murmansk Expedition and the burden being borne by the troops there now. It is only fair that the House should remember that this force has been there for a long time. It was sent there at a time when it was necessary for us to safeguard the British interests in that area, not against the Russians who fought with us as Allies in the early part of the War, but against the Bolshevik enemy who was out to push us into the sea. My hon. and gallant Friend will find general sympathy in his attitude towards these men whose further service is incumbent, but he will not carry the House with him when he doubts the wisdom of their being there or of our right to be there to defend the interests of our Allies. The arguments which he adduces against the Expedition I do not think will satisfy the House. I feel convinced that the general opinion will be that this is not a matter which can be dealt with piecemeal or on a Motion for the Adjournment. It raises an issue much wider than can be answered by me, speaking indirectly on behalf of the War Office. I can only inform my hon. Friend that I will take steps to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to his attitude both on the detailed cases and upon the whole general subject he has raised.

Mr. HOGGE: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right, as he has already spoken.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member. started the Debate, and occupied some time.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: On that point, I submit I was performing a useful function at the moment, because the Noble Lord (Lord Edmund Talbot) was not present on the Front Bench. I was simply enabling him to come from his room in order to answer an ordinary business question. I did not start the Debate. Of course, I am quite willing to obey your ruling if you say I did, but I do not propose to take more than five minutes, and I shall not keep the House more than that time.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member always performs a useful function. On this occasion I put the Question, "That this House do now adjourn." Thereupon the hon. Member rose, and he made a speech, no doubt very effective, which brought the Noble Lord in. There was a reply to that, and after that there came the hon. and gallant Member behind (Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy). If the hon. Member wishes to speak again, I have no doubt the House will agree, but I have no discretion in the matter.

Mr. HOGGE: If I may speak with the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, all I want to say is that, while my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Guest) obviously did not intend any discourtesy to the House, he was not in a position to give an answer to the questions put.

Captain GUEST: I do not know the names.

Mr. HOGGE: The hon. and gallant Member says he does not know the names. But my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Lieutenant-Commander Kenworthy) gave notice to-day, and after that the Secretary of State for War or the Under-Secretary should have been here. My hon. and gallant Friend has done what he could in the circumstances, and as the matter has not been replied to, and also as it is one of a great number of other grievances, might I point out to him—I would have done it to the Noble Lord, but he has again disappeared—that the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for War ought to be put down during the coming week on a day which we may take as an allotted day.

Captain GUEST: The Leader of the House will be back to-morrow, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion shall certainly be represented to him.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: This is one of the many cases about which there is much heartburning in the country. We have thousands of communications with regard to men in North Russia, and we send them up to the War Office, and the invariable answer we get is that the men cannot be demobilised, in the terms under which they are entitled to be demobilised, under the recent Army Order, because of the difficulties of transport. That is either true or it is not true. In this case, the man is already here, and therefore that reason cannot apply to his demobilisation. If you can bring him home, then you have no excuse for not carrying out the terms of the recent Army Order. That Army Order was quoted over and over again during the passage of the late Military Conscription Bill. They said "What are you making all this bother about? Here is the Army Order.
These men will all shortly be demobilised. They are all expected to be home before the end of April." That is not true. The men are not home, and the commanding officers are telling the men that they have the power to keep them until 30thApril next year. They have that power, and they will keep them there, a good many of them, notwithstanding anything that even the War Office may do. I suggest that this man, who is due to go back to North Russia on Monday, shall be kept at home on leave until the Secretary of State for War is here in his place to answer my hon. and gallant Friend's complaints. I do submit to the War Office that they should treat this House of Commons and private Members with some sort of courtesy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Seven o'clock.